Case law

Weiss v. Roschke

425 F.2d 772 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1970

Referring to McCutchen v. Oliver, 54 CCPA 756, 367 F. 2d 609 , 151 USPQ 387 (1966); Hall v. … Long v. Young, supra; Smith v. Wehn, supra. In the present case, we find no ambiguity as to count 8 and counts 1, 9, 11-13 and 16, which the board grouped with it.

Welte v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 164 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1914

American Express Co. et al. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 279 ; T. D. 33490). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Willie Fong, Amon H. Brown, William L. Wasley, Robert E. Whitfield and Lowell A. Miller

378 F.2d 977 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1967

A United States patent to another is a valid prior art reference when its United States filing date is earlier than the date of the applicant’s invention. 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e); Alexander Milburn Co. v. … Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252 , 86 S.Ct. 335 , 15 L.Ed.2d 304 (1965); In re Harry, 333 F.2d 920 , 51 CCPA 1541 (1964); see In re Hilmer, 359 F.2d 859 , •53 CCPA 1287 (1966).

In Re Fischer

57 F.2d 369 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

A.) 249 F. 228 ; Forsyth v. Garlock (C. C. A.) 142 F. 461 , and In re Phelps et al., 47 F.(2d) 387 , 18 C. C. P. A. 1036. … We think they were clearly right, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Formica Corporation v. The Newnan Corporation

396 F.2d 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1968

Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co., 178 F. 73 (2nd Cir. 1910). … United States Time Corp. v. Tennenbaum, 267 F.2d 327 , 46 CCPA 895. The trademark FORMICA, through aggressive and expensive merchandising, has become widely known.

Germania Importing Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 97 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1917

United States, supra, to require the Board of General Appraisers to make a supplemental return to the record herein. … See also Richardson v. Green ( 130 U. S., 104 ; 9 Sup. Ct., 443; 32 L. Ed., 872 ), Harris v. Harris ( 41 Ala., 364 ), Jones v. Caperton ( 14 La. Ann., 698 ), Holloman v. Middleton ( 23 Tex., 537 ), Mendenhall v.

United States v. Rosenstein

1 Ct. Cust. 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1911

Rep., 822), Kauffmann Bros. v. United States (99 Fed. Rep., 430), and in Benson v. United States (159 Fed. … See Sonn v. Magone ( 159 U. S., 417 ); Stewart v. United States (113 Fed. Rep., 928); Morrison v. Muller (37 Fed. Rep., 82); Dieckerhoff v. Robertson (44 Fed. Rep., 160); and Lamb v. Robertson (38 Fed. Rep., 716).

Kauffman II v. Altorfer

141 F.2d 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1944

In support of that holding, the board cited the cases of Grus v. Eynon, 1920 C. D. 49; Stewart v. Robinson, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 953, 55 F. (2d) 998, 1932 C. D. 245. … Schuda, and Earl V. Godfrey, which was submitted in the case of Kauffman II v.

Christian v. Muller

104 F.2d 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1939

Woelm v. Hasselquist, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 806, 62 F. (2d) 367. … There being no other issue involved in the appeal before us, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Cone v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1915

In Strauss v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 203 ; T. … Arthur v. Fox, supra.

Peeler v. Miller

535 F.2d 647 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1976

Perforce, the decision of the board must be reversed. … The decision of the board is reversed. REVERSED. . Involved on U.S.

Haglund v. Potts

109 F.2d 816 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1940

This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Board of Appeals and by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (Creed v. Potts, 96 F. (2d) 317.) In deciding interference 68,622 (Haglund v. … In its decision of November 4, 1938, the board referred to the consolidated cases of Noxon v. Potts and Franklin v.

United States v. Von Oefele

4 Ct. Cust. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1913

In United States v. … D. 32464), and United States v. Strauss ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 325 ; T. D. 32621).

Morris, Mann & Reilly Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1924

—Horsfield v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 138 [140]; T. D. 31186); Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 159 [160]; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

United States v. Lawrence

11 Ct. Cust. 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1921

The protest was submitted to the Board of General Appraisers, and the board sustained it. From that decision the Government appeals. … Kimball v. Collector ( 10 Wall., 436 ); Roebling v. United States ( 77 Fed., 601 ).

United States v. Jacobson & Sons Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

The board may have concluded it ought to adopt one of these definitions. There was, however, as already stated, no effort to prove commercial designation. … United States v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 430 ; T.

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.

Ralston Purina Company v. Midwest Cordage Company, Inc.

373 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 16, 1967

The board’s analysis of the foregoing led it to dismiss the petition for cancellation. … In Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514 , 9 S.Ct. 143 , 32 L.Ed. 526 (1888), the Court commented on McLean v.

Adams and Wakefield v. Wolinski

285 F.2d 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1961

The above entitled appeal arose out of a three-party interference, No. 87,508, which was entitled in the Patent Office, Keller, Garvin and McMillan v. Wolinski v. … Precedents relied on include Wheeler et al. v. Kleinsehmidt et al, 149 F.2d 161 , 32 CCPA 975, Beall v. Ormsby, 154 F.2d 663 , 33 CCPA 959, Thompson v.

Crimmins v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1915

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court; Two appeals from two decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. In United States v. A. H. … We are therefore of the opinion, and it is ordered, that the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in Crimmins & Pierce et al. v.