Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hague & Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 75 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1916

The words “composed wholly of” were considered in Schiff & Co. v. United States ( 140 Fed., 63 ), affirmed in United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Joseph D. Fisher

307 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 21, 1962

[Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 , 24 L.Ed. 235 .] … In Kuehmsted v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co., 179 F. 701 (7th Cir. 1910), cert. denied, 220 U.S. 622 , 31 S.Ct. 724 , 55 L.Ed. 613 (1911); Union Carbide Co. v.

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.

In Re McKee

64 F.2d 379 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1933

The Board of Appeals affirmed the action of the Examiner, and, from the decision of the Board, appeal is taken here. … We think the Board of Appeals properly affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of the claims, and the decision of the Board is affirmed. 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.

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.

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.

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 .

United States v. Brody

14 Ct. Cust. 90 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

In Klein, Messner Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273 , T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.