Case law

In re Oelrich

579 F.2d 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1978

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection of claims 1-5 in appellants’ application serial No. 452,050, filed March 18, 1974, for “Sub-Critical … Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 , 148 USPQ 459 (1966).

Krenzer v. Stoffel

551 F.2d 1214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 10, 1977

Velsicoi Chemical Corp. v. Monsanto Co., Civil Action No. 74 C 3702 (N.D.Ill., filed *1216 December 20, 1974). … Norton v. Curtiss, 433 F.2d 779 , 57 CCPA 1384, 167 USPQ 532 (1970). The evidence presented here certainly does not meet that standard.

In re Batcher

59 F.2d 461 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1932

Hirschy Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Robert Duva

387 F.2d 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

In Graham v. … Graham v. John Deere Co., supra.

Roselux Chemical Co., Inc., Bonnie-Lan, Inc., and Proxite Products, Inc. v. Parsons Ammonia Company, Inc.

299 F.2d 855 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1962

DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corporation, 289 F.2d 656 , 48 CCPA 909, 129 USPQ 275 . … Such proofs, however, are not legally adequate to support the board’s conclusion. The legal principles applicable here are those enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Kellogg Co. v.

United States v. Laurentide Paper Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 519 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1915

, or wood pulp, or the wood used in the manufacture of such paper, board, or wood pulp, or the wood pulp used in the manufacture of such paper or board.” … This section was construed by this court in Cliff Paper Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 186 ; T.

Application of G. D. Searle & Co

360 F.2d 650 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1966

Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., 299 F.2d 855 , 49 CCPA 931, 942. … The board, in affirming the examiner, relied on several grounds.

Veolay, Inc. v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 268 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1933

Every such application shall be assigned by the Board of General Appraisers to a board of three general appraisers, who shall consider the case upon the samples of the merchandise, if there be any, and the record made before … The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 125 ; Etting v. United States Bank, 11 Wheat. 57, 76 ; Brown v. Aspden et al., 14 How. 25 ; Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107 . This rule is one of necessity.

United States v. Haaker

4 Ct. Cust. 471 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

Arthur v. Lahey ( 96 U. S., 112 -113); Vietor v. Arthur ( 104 U. S., 498 -499); Robertson v. Glendenning ( 132 U. S., 158 -159); Chew Hing Lung v. Wise ( 176 U. S., 156 -160). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Rossiter v. Ellis

74 F.2d 455 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 24, 1934

Finally, the board affirmed the decision of the examiner. … Rocke v. Bogdonoff, 56 App. D. C. 140, 10 F. (2d) 1005. This is not such a question as was thought by the majority of the court in Sundstrand v. Gubelmann, 55 App. D.

In re Richman

563 F.2d 1026 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1977

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”), unchanged on reconsideration, sustaining the rejection of claims 1-4 1 under 35 USC 101 for being directed to nonstatutory … A concurring opinion states that Benson, as explained in Dann v.

Austin, Nichols & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 167 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1914

In Shallus v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 316 ; T. … This principle was affirmed in United States v. Baker ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338 ; T. D. 32076). In Vitelli v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 171 ; T.

In re Curtis

81 F.2d 236 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1936

In appellant’s appeal to the board he specifically assigned error in excluding said amendments, and in the reasons of appeal here there is included specifically as error the failure of the board to “over-rule the refusal … The drawing with the application shows the web to be made with the ordinary number of warp and weft threads and the pile threads are of the V-type surrounding one weft thread.

Belden v. Klingele

112 F.2d 805 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1940

It is urged on behalf of appellants that the foregoing holding of the board is in conflict with the decision of this court affirming a decision of the Board of Appeals in the case of Myles Morgan v. Alden M. … Hence, the board properly dismissed the motion. It might be pointed out, in view of the emphasis which counsel for appellants have placed upon the Morgan v.

In Re Wagenhorst

64 F.2d 780 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1933

In Mas v. Root, 54 F.(2d) 435, 436 , 19 C. C. P. … A. 952; Mas v. Root, 54 F.(2d) 435 , 19 C. C. P. A. 819; Southgate v. Greene, 57 F.(2d) 374, 377 , 19 C. C. P. A. 1129; Derby Oil Co. v. White Star Refining Co., 62 F.(2d) 984 , 20 C. C. P. A. ___. In Southgate v.

Otto Henning v. Scott F. Hunt

223 F.2d 926 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1955

The board did not feel that Henning sustained his burden, and we, on review of the record, are of the same opinion. We also feel that the case of Pew v. … In Avery v.

Application of Wayne T. Barrett, Moises G. Sanchez and Milton C. Vanik

440 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1971

Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403, 437 , 22 S.Ct. 698 , 46 L.Ed. 968 (1902). … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. 1 .

In re Swain

156 F.2d 239 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1946

Page 11, “Vinylite, Series V resins for Surface Coatings,” pub. 1939 by Carbide & Carbon Chem. Corp., ¡N. V. City. Widmer et al., 2,197,357, April 16,1940. Moore, 2,218,474, October 15, 1940. … (Patents) 823, 146 F. (2d) 299, 64 USPQ 186 ; Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, 69 App. D. C. 217, 99 F. (2d) 986, 38 USPQ 213 .

Solomon v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

In the case of United States v. Judae & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 164 . T. … Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 124 , T. D. 37979, and cases therein cited.

Amerman & Patterson Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 117 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1924

Co. v. … It appears that the liquid in question contained 4 per cent of salt in solution, and the board held that it was brine. We do not disagree with that finding. —Delapenha & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 18 ; T.