Case law

New York Merchandise Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1926

In Bradstreet v. … United States v. Bliss, 172 U. S. *498 321 ; Reed v. Proprietors of Locks, 8 How. 274 ; Bienville v. Mobile, 186 U. S. 212 . The Government, in this ease, before the board, made no claim of res adjudicóla.

Wilbur M. Van Otteren v. William J. Hafner and Gordon H. Cork

278 F.2d 738 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1960

Counsel for Van Otteren rely on an affidavit by James V. … It is well settled that a duly executed joint application is prima facie evidence of joint inventorship; Brown v. Edeler et al., 110 F.2d 858 , 27 CCPA 1091, and cases there cited.

In re Wilcox

87 F.2d 532 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1937

The examiner rejected claim 25 as unpatentable either over Brown-lee et al. or Wulff, 1,917,627. … We agree with the decision of the Board of Appeals, and it is affirmed.

In re Luck

476 F.2d 650 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 26, 1973

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L. Ed.2d 545 (1966). … See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535 , 59 C.C.P.A. - (1972) and the case cited therein.

Haskell v. Colebourne

671 F.2d 1362 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1982

v. … Lamp v.

In re Magat

240 F.2d 351 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1957

The board did not point out the “obvious chemical similarities” and did not explain the pertinence of the De Bell and Bayer citations. … As to the manipulative steps involved, Bayer states that in producing polyurethanes, “In contrast with the case of polyamides we can work in open vessels, for the admission of atmospheric oxygen does not cause any brown coloration

Schade & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 465 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1914

United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 158 ; T. D. 31211); United States v. Salomon ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 246 ; T. D. 31277); Schoellkopf, Hartford & MacLagan (Ltd.) v. United States ( 71 Fed., 694 ). … At the hearing's before the Board of General Appraisers several witnesses testified.

Hurst & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 81 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

D. 35002); United States v. Maine Central Railway Co. (7 id. 114; T. D. 36427); Hartranft v. Weigmann ( 121 U. S. 609 ).—Smillie & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 199 ; T. D. 38966). … The judgment of the board overruling the protest is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded.

United States v. Britt

7 Ct. Cust. 63 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1916

In United States v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Karl Folkers

344 F.2d 967 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1965

During prosecution, appellant removed a Brown et al. publication by a Rule 131 affidavit which was accepted by the Patent Office as showing a date of completion of the invention in the United States *968 prior to April 1955 … The board held that appellant could not remove a publication whose date was more than a year prior to his effective U.

Ericson v. Shaff

104 F.2d 626 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1939

The stipulated testimony-does not.add anything to Brown’s testimony. … The witness Brown after referring to certain tests made with carburetors conforming to the disclosure in appellant’s patent No. 1,872,708, testified as follows: Q. 94.

United States v. Bigelow-Hartford Carpet Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 74 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1927

The protest was sustained by a majority of the board, one member dissenting. … Brown, J., found that the importation was inferior in grade and quality to the wools mentioned in paragraph 1101.

In re Hoover Co.

134 F.2d 624 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1943

(Patents) 1060, 47 F. (2d) 963; In re Long, supra; Avery v. Chase, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 823, 101 F. (2d) 205; Dirkes et al. v. Eitzen, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1198, 103 F. (2d) 520; and Saunders v. Browne, 28 C. C. … S. 1 ; Brown v. Fletcher, 182 Fed. 963 . The board, in said Interference No. 71,801, awarded priority to Becker after holding that Heuberger could not make the counts.

Field v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

The protest was submitted to the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled, General Appraiser Brown dissenting. The importers now appeal. … See United States v. Churchill ( 106 Fed., 672 ). The same reasoning was adopted by the board in G. A. 6112 (T. D. 26609).

Stroheim v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 489 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1926

In support of this contention appellants have cited Brown & Co v. United States, 11 Ct. Cu . Appls. 403, and United States v. Matagrin, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 309 . … The cases of Brown & Co., supra, and Matagrin, supra, are not in point. The opinion of the board, in this case, was controlled by its decision in the case of Fenton & Co. v. United States, G. A. 8820, T. D. 40260.

Thuron Industries, Inc. v. Conard-Pyle Co.

579 F.2d 633 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1978

The board in Jenkins Publishing Co. v. … See Coca-Cola Co. v. Rodriguez Flavoring Syrups, Inc., 89 USPQ 36 (Examiner in Chief 1951); Brown & Bigelow v. International Silver Co., 86 USPQ 460 (Comm’r Pat. 1950). .

In re McKean

83 F.2d 822 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1936

To supply these features of novelty, the Board relies upon the old patent to Hill and Brown which shows a different kind of traverse roll having a slot that has an increased pitch near the smaller end but does not increase … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

McEnany v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 329 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1918

The protest was submitted upon testimony to the Board of General Appraisers, and was overruled by a majority decision of the board. The importer appeals. … C. 87 Fed., 863 (Aff.); Matheson & Co. v. United States, 90 Fed., 275 (oil of mirbane); *332 United States v. Burlington Venetian Blind Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 378 ; T. D. 32967 (ladder tapes); (Henderson & Hall v.

In re Laursen

73 F.2d 648 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1934

The examiner rejected claims 1 to 6, 9, 10, 11, and 17 to 20, inclusive, which rejection was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. … This language, it is said by the Board of Appeals, “ discloses that it was old to circulate this water.’’

Hot Shoppes, Inc. v. The Borden Company

404 F.2d 999 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1969

404 F.2d 999 HOT SHOPPES, INC., Appellant, v. The BORDEN COMPANY, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 8039. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. December 19, 1968. Rehearing Denied March 6, 1969. … Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C. (Francis C. Browne, Richard G. Kline, Washington, D. C., of counsel) for appellant. John L. Sigalos, Maurice T. McElligott, New York City, for appellee.