Case law

United States v. Salomon

1 Ct. Cust. 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1911

In Swan v. Arthur ( 103 U. … In Standard Varnish Works v. United States (59 Fed.

Shumaker v. Paulson

136 F.2d 700 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

Mascuch, appellee in Appeals Nos. 4695, Paulson v. Mas- *1157 cuch, and 4696, Hyland v. Mascuch, 30 C. C. P .A. … In the companion cases, Appeals Nos. 4689, Shumaker v. Paulson and Hyland, and 4690, Paulson v. Hyland, 30 C. C. P. A.

Application of Deister Concentrator Company, Inc

289 F.2d 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1961

James Heddon’s Sons v. Millsite Steel & Wire Works, Inc., 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 6 ; J. C. Penney Co. v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co., 8 Cir., 120 F.2d 949 ; West Point Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Stamping Co., 6 Cir., 222 F.2d 581 . … At the present time and especially since Mazer v.

Jan A. Rajchman v. John M. Herbert and Anthony W. Simpson

312 F.2d 926 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

In Liebscher v. … Kean v. Wheelan, 102 F.2d 824 , 26 CCPA 1010; Kirby v. Clements, 44 App.D.C. 12 , 1915 C.D. 163.

In Re Rundell

55 F.2d 450 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1932

In Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1, 24 , 22 L. … Co. v. Dayton Fan & Motor Co. (C. C.) 106 F. 724, 726 ; Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Electric Appliance Co. (C. C.) 142 P. 545 , 551.”

United States v. Moos & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1914

On these findings of fact the board sustained the protests and the Government appealed. … United States v. Palma ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 140 ; T. D. 33412); United States v. Sprague, Warner et al. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 358 ; T. D. 33532).

Downing v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 500 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1911

The board found against this claim on the evidence. … Maddock v. Magone ( 152 U. S., 371 ).

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.

Bush & Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1920

The board affirmed the decision of the collector. Importers appeal. … See also United States v. Isaacs ( 148 U. S., 654 ) and United States v. Schoverling ( 146 U. S., 76 ). There is another consideration pertinent.

In re Land

109 F.2d 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1940

Were the present case to be granted, wo should have a situation somewhat similar to that presented in the case of Palmer Company v. Lozier, 90- P. R. 732. … One of the cases cited in both appeals and discussed here at some length by the appellant is Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T.

United States v. Altman & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917

D. 29634) and Woodruff & Co. v. United States (168 Id., 452; T. … See Kenyon Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 344 ; T. D. 33529).

Arnold, Schwinn & Co., Opposer-Appellant v. Evans Products Company, Applicant-Appellee

302 F.2d 765 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1962

In Skram Co. v. … v.

Application of Edward C. Shokal, Paul A. Devlin and Deloss E. Winkler

242 F.2d 771 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

In that connection appellants cite the case of Meigs v. … Arness v. Franks, 138 F.2d 213 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 737; In re Rodman, 223 F.2d 281 , 42 C.C.P.A., Patents, 951; Prutton v. Fuller, 230 F.2d 459 , 43 C.C.P.A., Patents, 831, and cases there cited.

In re Hoffmann

58 F.2d 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

It is contended, however, that the following language of the Supreme Court in the case of Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, 148 U. … In discussing the law pertaining to mechanical, as well as design, patents, the court quoted with approval the following from the case of Northrup v. Adams, 12 O.

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.

In re Haney

158 F.2d 296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

O’Connell, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the .Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the Primary Examiner in rejecting claims 1 to 8 … Loom Company v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 586 ; In re Beach, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 815; 152 F. (2d) 981, 68 USPQ 196 .

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 Christensen

478 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1973

Subsequent to the oral argument of this appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 , 93 S.Ct. 253 , 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972) (hereafter Benson). … The 'board, agreeing with the examiner’s reasoning, affirmed.

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.

Fink v. Humel

70 F.2d 115 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1934

Sachs v. Wadsworth, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1284, 48 F. (2d) 928; Buchanan v. Lademann, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 836, 54 F. (2d) 425. … We regard this case as being somewhat analogous to that of James v. Stimson, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1255, 49 F. (2d) 493. The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed, and priority awarded to the senior party, Fink.