Case law

Long v. Young

159 F.2d 766 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

Hagen v. Cords, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1128, 88 P. (2d) 998 , 33 USPQ, 230 . In certain instances where the language is ambiguous resort may be had to the application in which the counts arise. Malm et al. v. … It is another rule, not involved here, that where the board gives counts a narrow construction for the purpose of avoiding the prior art we will likewise give the counts the same construction. Kaufmann II v.

Application of Blanchard Importing & Distributing Co., Inc

360 F.2d 254 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1966

May Dep’t Stores Co. v. Schloss Bros. & Co., 234 F.2d 879, 881 , 43 CCPA 980, citing cases. The marks must be considered in their entireties. Murray Corp. of America v. … In American Brewing Co. v.

Application of Kinderman

178 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1949

Vickery v. Barnhart, 118 F.2d 578 , 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 979; Gold v. Gold, 34 App.D.C. 152 ; Sandusky Foundry & Machine Co. v. De Lavaud et al., 6 Cir., 274 F. 607 . … In.re Ashbaugh, 173 F.2d 273 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 902, and authorities therein cited; Smith Engineering Works v. Nordberg Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 68 F.2d 492 .

Application of Ernst-Albrecht Pieroh and Horst Werres

319 F.2d 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1963

Old Town Ribbon & Carbon Co. v. Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Co., 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 379 . See also In re Riden et al., 318 F.2d 761 , 50 CCPA-. … One good reference is better than 50 poor ones, and the 50 do not make the one any better. * * * ” (Ball & Roller Bearing Co. v. F. C. Sanford Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 297 F. 163 ). .

Cardinal Engineering Corporation v. Champion Manufacturing Company

300 F.2d 957 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1962

or deception of purchasers,” citing its own decision in Essex Wire Corporation v. … If the ultimate proof s were limited to the bare record before the board an¿ here, that is, only to the marks themseiveS) we would agree with the board’s conclusion.

Stewart v. Robinson

55 F.2d 998 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1932

This being true, we concur in the conclusion of the board that it was not necessary to consider the application of the doctrine laid down in Mason v. Hep burn, supra. … In Quist v. Ostrom, 23 App. D.

Cuccio & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

In United States v. Shallus, this day decided, we have considered the law applicable to this case, and it will be. unnecessary, therefore, herein to reiterate, the principles of law considered. … the board in the particular case.'

Application of Hans T. F. Lundberg and Theodore Zuschlag

244 F.2d 543 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1957

As correctly stated by appellants in their brief, this paragraph was designed, at least in part, to modify or overrule such decisions as Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. … We therefore sustain the board’s rejection of this claim.

In re Dalton

37 F.2d 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

The gear covering at the latter end is of inverted V shape, the upper portion thereof being within the ventilating opening. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Ray

167 F.2d 504 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1948

With respect to the other involved claims, the board expressly rejected them as not reading on the elected species. … In the case of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 , the Supreme Court held that a claim should not be allowed when it discloses “nothing new except perhaps in functional terms.”

In Re Engelhardt

40 F.2d 760 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1930

Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126,130 , 24 L. Ed, 1000. … Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co. (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 463 .

Application of Friedrich Gruschwitz and Albert Fritz

320 F.2d 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 26, 1963

“[If the appeal be from the decision of the Commissioner in a case of interference, the reasons may be-as follows:] “The Commissioner erred in-awarding priority of invention to-William Brown. *411 “The Commissioner erred … Honigbaum, 54 F.2d 147 , 19 CCPA 773; Mas v. Root, 54 F.2d 435 , 19 CCPA 819; Southgate v. Greene, 57 F.2d 374 , 19 CCPA 1129; Derby Oil Co. v.

Application of Charles T. Fuetterer

319 F.2d 259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1963

See, e. g., O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 , 14 L.Ed. 601 ; Heidbrink, v. McKesson, 290 F. 665 . The desired result of 'appellant’s invention is limiting , the skidding of a tire tread stock on a wet surface. … See, e. g., Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U.S. 537, 558 , 18 S.Ct. 707 , 42 L.Ed. 1136 .

Davis v. Carrier

81 F.2d 250 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1936

This principle is involved in the following authorities: Fritz v. Hawn, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 796, 37 F. (2d) 430; Braunstein v. Holmes, 30 App. D. C. 328; Novelty Glass Mfg. Co. v. Brookfield et al., 170 Fed. 946 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Kundtz

6 Ct. Cust. 501 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1916

From the decision of the board the Government appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Application of Erwin F. Schoenewaldt

343 F.2d 1000 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1965

See Detrola Radio and Television Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 313 U.S. 259, 265 , 61 S.Ct. 948 , 85 L.Ed. 1319 , and also Judge Hand’s views consistent with that case in The Western States Machine Co. v. S.S. … Hepworth Co., 147 F.2d 345 , (2d Cir. 1945); Old Town Ribbon Co. v. Columbia Ribbon Mfg. Co., 159 F.2d 379 (2d Cir. 1947). But see, Robinson Aviation, Inc. v. The Barry Corp., 106 F.Supp. 514 (D.Mass.1952).

Meyer v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

cooking * * * the strained liquid or juice of fruit after being boiled with sugar until it becomes a stiffened mass when cooled; the stiffened juice of boiled meat, sweetened and flavored, as calves’feet jelly. *249 Bogle v. … The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Malhame & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1918

if authorized by the board. … Davies v. Arthur ( 96 U. S., 148 ); United States v. Salambier ( 170 U. S., 621 ); Bliven v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 205 ; T. D. 31239); Oelrichs & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 232 ; T.

Jerry Finn v. Cooper's Incorporated

292 F.2d 555 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 26, 1961

In International Latex Corp. v. I. B. … Bielzoff Products Company v.

Josserand v. Taylor

138 F.2d 58 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1943

In support of such conclusion, the board cited the cases of Thompson v. Smith, 33 App. D. C. 284, and Janette v. Folds et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 879, 38 F. (2d) 361. … In the case of Johnson v. Weissman and Weissman v. Ferguson, 1937 C. D. 3, it was held on the authority of Connor v. Williams, 1878 C. D. 137, and Richards v. Meissner, 24 App. D. C. 305, 1905 C.