Case law

United States v. Vietor

1 Ct. Cust. 297 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1911

On appeal to the Board of General Appraisers the decision of the collector was modified; the board holding that the proviso to paragraph 402 contemplates that the article or fabric imported shall bear no less rate of duty … See United States v. Vantine (166 Fed. Rep., 735).

San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.

565 F.2d 683 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1977

Sales of capacitors under its above mark in the period of 1970-75, as found by the board, were in excess of $35 million. … Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1021-22 , 194 USPQ 419, 421-22 (Cust. & Pat.App.1977); Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v.

Tanners' Council of America, Inc. v. Gary Industries, Inc., D.B.A. Acco Products

440 F.2d 1404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

The board, in concluding lack of standing, relied heavily upon this court’s opinion in Pocahontas Operators Association v. Carter Coal Company, 160 F.2d 114 , 34 CCPA 926, 73 USPQ 51 (1947). … In Singer Manufacturing Co. v.

Application of Jerome G. Kuderna, Jr. And Donald D. Phillips

426 F.2d 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1970

Here, for example, if one singles out the Lemin patent and the compound therein found to be most structurally similar to that of appellants, the examiner and board's position seems plausible. … As support for this proposition appellants refer to the following statement from Deutsche Gold-Und Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler v.

M. H. Pulaski Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1915

Wooster v. Georgia ( 6 Pet., 575 , 582), Hauenstein v. Lynham ( 100 U. S., 483 ), Tucker v. Alexandroff ( 183 U. S., 424 ), Johnson v. Browne ( 205 U. S., 309 ). … By the Board of General Appraisers they were held not to be such, and it is thought by some that the board should be sustained upon this issue.

In Re Fischel

136 F.2d 254 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1943

Co., C.C., 136 F. 210, 212 , affirmed in Williams Calk Co. v. Kemmerer, 3 Cir., 145 F. 928 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Litman

480 F.2d 872 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 12, 1973

He also suggested to the board that applicants’ alleged failure to respond to some of his rejections in their brief before the board called for dismissal of the appeal as to several claims. … Compare Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interehemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327 , 65 S.Ct. 1143 , 89 L.Ed. 1644 (1945).

Wimpeheimer v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 546 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1925

The board overruled the protest and the importer appealed. … —Cruger’s (Inc.) v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 516 ; T. D. 40730), decided concurrently herewith.

Gibbs v. United States

41 C.C.P.A. 57 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1953

Gibbs v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 318 , C. D. 1430. … (citing Cruger’s (Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust.

Vitelli v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 171 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1912

See also United States v. Reid, Murdoch & Co. (120 Fed. Rep., 242) and Spencer v. United States (143 Fed. Rep., 916). … We think that, following the rule of Seeberger v. Wright and the two cases in this court in which it has been construed — Shallus v. United States, supra, and United States v.

Kuttroff v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 299 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1924

McCulloch v. Maryland ( 4 Wheat. 316, 423 ); Veazie Bank v. Fenno ( 8 Wall. 533 ); The Lottery case ( 188 U. S. 321 -362, 363); Hammer v. Dagenhart ( 247 U. S. 251 -273, 274, 275, 276); Child Labor Tax case ( 259 U. … United States v. Wells ( 77 Fed. 411, 412 ); Klipstein v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 122, 124 ; T. D. 31120).

Sittig v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 281 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

In Strausky v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Crabtree

74 F.2d 998 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1935

We are of opinion that the rejection of claim 23 for the r-eason given by the Board of Appeals was improper. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed as to said claim 23, and affirmed as to claims 24, 25, and 26.

United States v. Tattersfield Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 492 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1923

Crimmins & Pierce et al. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 137 ; T. D. 35392.) Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 104 -107; T. D. 37221.) … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In Re Dixon

44 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

The law is well settled by Hotel Security, etc., v. Lorraine Co., 160 Fed. 467 ; Berardini v. Tocci, 200 Fed. 1021 ; Moore v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 120 ; In re Moeser, 27 App. D. C. 307. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Robert Hall Clothes, Inc. v. Stern-Slegman-Prins Company

285 F.2d 816 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1961

See: The Englander Company, Inc. v. Contour Chair-Lounge Co., Inc. and cases cited therein, 120 USPQ 233 (TT&A Bd., 1959). … Co. v. Minnesota Linseed Oil Paint Co., etc., 229 F.2d 448 , 43 CCPA 746), it is damaged by appellee’s registration. This court stated in Price Vacuum Stores, Inc. v.

In re deC. Kratz

592 F.2d 1169 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1979

In Bergstrom, the treatment of “novelty” by the board was error. Although “new” is mentioned in § 101, it is applied under § 102. A similar situation is found in the well known “Vitamin B-12” cases. Merck v. … Merck v. Olin Mathieson Chemical, 253 F.2d at 160 , 116 USPQ at 487 ; Merck v. Chase Chemical, 273 F.Supp. at 83 , 155 USPQ at 151 . . The publications themselves are not “prior art.” Kratz is not a public document.

Application of Lee

193 F.2d 186 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 18, 1951

Eight claims were allowed by the board. … Faulkner v. Gibbs, 338 U.S. 267, 268 , 70 S.Ct. 25 , 94 L.Ed. 62 ; Williams Mfg. Co. v. Shoe Mach.

Robert S. Kravig and Arnold E. Johnson v. David J. Henderson

393 F.2d 1017 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1968

Appellant’s as-signee, 3M, prosecuting a suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, in Utica, New York, entitled Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. … Error is alleged in the board’s failure to do this.

United States v. Cochran

3 Ct. Cust. 57 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1912

Stuart v. Maxwell ( 16 How., 150 ); Fisk v. Arthur ( 103 U. S., 431 ); see also Hartranft v. Meyer ( 135 U. S., 237 ). … Mason v. Robertson ( 139 U. S., 624 ). See, also, United States v. Eckstein, decided by the Supreme Court December 4, 1911 (T. D. 32090); Thomass v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 86 ; T. D. 31107); Robins v.