Case law

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.

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.

Gallagher v. Smith

206 F.2d 939 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 28, 1953

The Board of Interference Examiners awarded conception and reduction to practice to the appellant in' 1943, and the record fully supports the board’s action in that respect. … In the early case of Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App.D.C. 86 , the doctrine of equitable estoppel based on supression and concealment of an invention following its reduction to practice was appropriately formulated.

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.

Application of Olson

212 F.2d 590 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1954

Bloodhart v. Levernier, 64 F.2d 367 , 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 917; Wiemer v. Coe, Comr. Pats., 45 USPQ 407 . … See also In re Betz, 166 F.2d 831 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1033; Wasberg v. Ditchfield, 155 F.2d 408 , 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1099.

McKee v. Noonan

86 F.2d 986 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1936

See Macfarren v. Morgan, 58 App.D.C. 77 , 24 F.(2d) 1003 . In Thomson Meter Co. v. … Anthony Co. v.

Heyliger v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 90 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

The importers submitted testimony to the board tending to sustain these allegations, and they now ask a reversal of the board’s-decision. … In accordance with the foregoing views the decision of the board is 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 ).

Ringk & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 40 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 19, 1924

—United States v. Frank ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 239 ; T. D. 31973); United States v. Bennett (id. 249; T. D. 31975); United States v. Moorewood, ( 94 Fed. 639 ); article 584, Customs Regulations, 1915. … The decision of the board overruling the protest is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded accordingly. Reversed.

In re Herz

537 F.2d 549 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 22, 1976

The patents relied • upon by the board majority are: Orloff et al. (Orloff) 3,115,465 Dec. 24, 1963 Messina et al. … Norton Co. v. Carborundum Co., 530 F.2d 435 (CA 1 1976); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951 , 50 CCPA 1312 (1963).

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.

Application of Cox

198 F.2d 846 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 30, 1952

The board said that “A claim which is functional at the exact point of • novelty does not possess the definiteness required by the statute,” citing General Electric Co. v. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed. JACKSON, J., retired, recalled to participate herein. ■

In re Solakian

155 F.2d 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

The above-quoted statement by the board indicates that if a method claim sets forth the function of a machine it is not a true process claim. … This position is supported clearly by the decision in the case of Waxham v. Smith et al., 294 U.

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.

The Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company v. Mann Overall Company, Inc.

359 F.2d 450 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1966

The board denied the motion to dismiss on the authority of Sunbeam Corp. v. … In Anno v.

Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 309 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1912

In the case of Morrill v. Jones ( 106 U. … See upon this point Campbell v. United States ( 107 U. S., 407 ) and the cases cited and Railroad Co. v. Smith ( 76 U. S., 95 ). The case of Dunlap v. United States ( 173 U.

In re Newton

110 F.2d 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1940

A case much in point is General Electric Co. v. Wabash, Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 , where the following claim was held invalid : 25.. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Seabury

108 F.2d 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1939

Following Miller v. Brass Company, supra, the Supreme Court, in Topliff v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Clemens

622 F.2d 1029 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1980

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49 , 86 S.Ct. 708, 713 , 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966) [Emphasis added.] … See Hazeltine Research Inc. v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252, 255-56 , 86 S.Ct. 335, 337-38 , 15 L.Ed.2d 304 (1965). .