Case law

Application of Philip v. Palmquist and James v. Erwin

319 F.2d 547 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1963

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed. 1 . “§ 10S. … See e. g., Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248 , 52 U.S. 248 , 13 L.Ed. 683 ; Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U.S. 556 , 13 S.Ct. 719 , 37 L.Ed. 558 ; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.

Kratz v. Calvert

129 F.2d 542 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

The case is associated, in a sense, with the cases of Winkelmann v. Calvert and Calvert v. … Braren v. George Horner, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1408, 49 F. (2d) 984; Rollie B. Fageol v. Gabriel Midboe, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1117, 56 F. (2d) 867; Chittick v. Lyons et al., 26 C. C. P. A.

Application of Louis I. Hansen and Alexis G. Coutsicos

332 F.2d 825 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1964

Since the claims are too broad, they fail to point out and distinctly claim the alleged invention; Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp., 273 U.S. 692 , 47 S. … Ct. 570 , 71 L.Ed. 843 ; American Chemical Paint Co. v. Firestone Steel Products Co. (C.A.6) 117 F.2d 927 ; In re Sus et al., 306 F.2d 494 , 49 CCPA 1301, and decisions cited therein.”

United States v. Stern

5 Ct. Cust. 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

In Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. … Shaw v. United States ( 122 Fed., 443 ).

In re Seid

161 F.2d 229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1947

Milburn Co. v. Davis etc. Co., 270 U. S. 390 ; In re Jesse A. B. Smith, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 752, 36 F. (2d) 522, 4 U. S. Pat. Q. 235; In re Charles R. Downs and Augustus E. Craver, 18 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re American Cyanamid & Chemical Corporation

99 F.2d 964 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1938

In Johnson v. … for some special purpose made chiefly of boards or resembling a -board; as, a blackboard; a bulletin board; a sounding board; a springboard.”

Diamond v. Woodyard

186 F.2d 729 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1951

Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593 , 37 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 1211; Kenyon v. Platt et al., 152 F.2d 1006 , 33 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 748. … See also Anderson v. Walch, 152 F.2d 975 , 33 C.C.P.A, Patents, 774; Downs v. Andrews, 58 App.D.C. 91, 97 , 25 F.2d 218 .

Application of Josef Fried and Josef E. Herz

329 F.2d 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1964

The board sustained that rejection, 4 but for a somewhat different reason. … Bullard Co. et al. v. Coe, Com’r Pats., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 369 , 147 F.2d 568 .

Altman & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 102 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1921

The board accordingly overruled ■the protest and the importers appealed. … —Carter & Son v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 253 ; T. D. 35475); United States v. Snow’s United States Sample Express Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 312 ; T. D. 36872); United States v. Mills & Gibb ( 8 Ct. Cust.

In re Wadsworth

107 F.2d 596 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1939

The board reversed the examiner upon the rejection of claims 1 to 6, inclusive, upon the ground of unreasonable delay in applying for reissue, and these claims stand allowed; but as stated above, the board affirmed the rejection … claim in a reissue application (when similar claims have been rejected during the prosecution of the original application and such rejection was acquiesced in by the applicant) are set out at length in the case of Leggett v.

In re Curley

158 F.2d 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

Accordingly, the board affirmed its original decision rejecting the appealed claims. … See Robins v. Wettlaufer, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 952, 81 F. (2d) 882, 28 USPQ 470 .

Application of Jean Druey and Paul Schmidt

319 F.2d 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 27, 1963

Appellants seek reversal of the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner’s rejection of one claim in appellants’ application 1 entitled “New Amino-Benzene Sulfonamide,” as. unpatentable over the prior … which stems from Parker v.

Application of Colonial Stores Incorporated

394 F.2d 549 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1968

McPartland, Inc. v. … The board confined its discussion to that issue.

Hurd v. Smith

97 F.2d 147 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

Gowen v. William F. Hendry and Robert W. King, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 789, 37 F. (2d) 426. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Brooks Paper Co. v. United States

40 C.C.P.A. 38 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1952

National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U. S. 292 . … We believe these distinctions are implicitly recognized in the case of National Labor Relations Board v.

In re Clark

97 F.2d 628 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

Interesting cases on the effect of functional statements might be cited such as Automatic Appliance Co. v. McNiece Motor Co., 20 F. (2d) 578; Linville et al. v. … Co. v. Rotary Machine Co. et al., 31 F. (2d) 646. We think that claim 12 should have been allowed and the decision of the Board of Appeals as to it is reversed; as to claim 19 it is affirmed.

Application of Jabour

182 F.2d 213 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1950

The board agreed with the examiner’s rejection. … Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 511 , 20 L.Ed. 731 ; In re Faustmann, 155 F.2d 388 , 33 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 1065.

In re Hanna

136 F.2d 749 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

The board did not cite any authority in its decision, but presumably, agreed with the examiner as to the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 . … In its decision the Court of Appeals (after citing Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354 ) interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in the Chapman v.

Hendrickson & Nelson v. Ronning & Ronning

76 F.2d 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1935

Upon appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed this decision. … Hayes v. Davison, 50 App. D. C. 361, 273 F. 325 ; Earles et al. v. Gomber, 50 App. D. C. 389, 273 F. 353 ; Leonard v. Everett, 52 App. D. C. 90, 281 F. 594 ; Chapman v. Beede, 54 App. D.

Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Tailored Clothes, Inc.

293 F.2d 685 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 16, 1961

Salem Commodities, Inc. v. Miami Margarine Co., 244 F.2d 729 , 44 CCPA 932; DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656 , 48 CCPA 909. … Co. v. Staley Milling Co., 99 USPQ 175 (Com’r.), Townley *687 Clothes, Inc. v. Goldring, Inc., 100 USPQ 57 (Com’r.), Squirrel Brand Co., v.