Case law

In re Sarkar

575 F.2d 870 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1978

The board held that the claimed method embodying such a technique was not statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as construed in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 , 93 S.Ct. 253 , 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). … See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 1306 , 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978).

Gunter v. Stream

573 F.2d 77 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1978

Land v. Dreyer, 155 F.2d 383 , 33 CCPA 1108 (1946); Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292 , 17 CCPA 647 (1929). … The board correctly cited the definition for conception initially stated in Mergenthaler v.

United States v. Snow's United States Sample Express Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 120 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1915

Movius v. Arthur ( 95 U. S., 144 ); Arthur v. Lahey ( 96 U. S., 112 ); Chew Hing Lung v. Wise ( 176 U. S., 156 ); Krauss v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 17 ; T. D. 31574). … . - In Hall v. United States (T. D. 25340) a decision of the Board of General Appraisers was affirmed. In the decision of the board by De Vries, G.

Application of George E. Linnert and Ronald H. Espy

309 F.2d 498 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1962

In cases of this kind it must not be lost sight of, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Eibel Process Co. v. … Appealed claims 1 through 4 are very similar to.appealed claims 9, 10 and 11 in Becket v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. 51 , 98 F.2d 332 .

Application of William L. Hartop, Jr., and Edward P. Brandes

311 F.2d 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

Some of these are as follows: Harrison et al. v. Cadwell, 39 F.2d 704 , 17 CCPA 1024; St. John et al. v. Schulze, 47 F.2d 798 , 18 CCPA 1050; Payne v. Hurley, 71 F.2d 208 , 21 CCPA 1144; Goodale v. … Lund, 96 F.2d 840 , 25 CCPA 1148; Chittick v. Lyons, 104 F.2d 818 , 26 CCPA 1382; Taylor v. Swingle, 136 F.2d 914 , 30 CCPA 1219; Lustig v. Legat, 154 F.2d 680 , 33 CCPA 991; Morway et al. v.

Kridel, Sons & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 250 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1918

United States v. Swedish Produce Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223 ; T. D. 33437); United States v. Wyman & Co. (Ib., 264; T. D. 33845); United States v. Gordon & Ferguson, ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 410 ; T. D. 35976). … United States v. Nozaki Bros. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286 ; T. D. 34471); United States v. Rice (Ib., 288; T. D. 34472); De Liagre & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 470 ; T. D. 35989).

Wanamaker v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 93 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

The collector assessed them at the higher rate and the Board of General Appraisers sustained his action. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is, therefore, reversed.

Walton v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 100 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1928

There is force in this argument, and had the board found in accordance with the importer’s contention, we probably would not disturb the finding. It must be remembered, however, that the board saw the witnesses. … The comment by the board that the failure to notice it was “rather remarkable” seems justified. But, however this may be, we think, in principle, this case is ruled by Stone & Downer Co. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust.

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.

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.

Hawley v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 456 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

The board overruled the protest, and the importer appeals. … See United States v. Hobbs ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 256 ; T. D. 32567). See also Neresheimer v. United States (131 Fed. Rep., 977); Louisville Co. v. United States (144 Fed. Rep., 386); United States v.

Royal Crown Cola Co. v. Pure Springs (Canada) Ltd.

311 F.2d 805 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

Appellant’s position here, as it was before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, is aptly summarized in the board’s opinion as follows: ' Coined arbitrary marks, sneb as those here involved, are more difficult to retain … v.

Redden v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 485 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 15, 1915

In the case of Schiff v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 89 ; T. … Under the tariff act of 1897 a question very similar to the present issue was raised in the case of Shear Co. v. United States, decided by, the board on April 8, 1904, Abstract 1011 (T. D. 25199).

In Re General Electric Company

304 F.2d 688 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 11, 1962

Baker-Lull Corp., 48 CCPA 865, 288 F. 2d 926 , 129 USPQ 220 ; Vita-Var Corp. v. Galvicon Corp., 48 CCPA 771, 284 F. 2d 953 , 128 USPQ 195 ; Rexall Drug Co. v. … As the board itself said, VULKENE is “an arbitrary and coined word.” We consider this to be a point of great significance, and one which neither the examiner nor the board appears to have treated as significant.

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.

Joseph & Feiss Co. v. Sportempos, Inc.

451 F.2d 1402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1971

This is an appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board summarily dismissing, on motion, the opposition of appellant, *743 The Joseph. & Feiss Company. … Corp. v. J.

In re Abrahamsen

68 F.3d 569 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1934

This court also, in the Abrahannsen case, supra, cited the case of Braren v. Horner, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 971, 47 F. (2d) 358, on the effect to be given to introductory statements in claims. … The decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming that of the examiner, is affirmed.

Industria Espanola de Perlas Imitacion, S. A. v. National Silver Co.

459 F.2d 1049 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1972

Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 52 CCPA 957, 340 F. 2d 978 , 144 USPQ 433 (1965). … Carlisle Chemical Works v. Hardman & Holden, 58 CCPA 751, 434 F. 2d 1403 , 167 USPQ 110 (1970). We, therefore, reverse the decision of the board. 163 USPQ 482 (1969).

Crown Industrial Products Company v. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation

440 F.2d 446 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1971

While both parties filed briefs, only appellee presented oral arguments to the board and to this court, appellant submitting on brief in both instances. … Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc. v. The Gerson Stewart Corp., 151 USPQ 350 [ 367 F.2d 431 , 54 CCPA 751] (CCPA, 1966); Cambridge Rubber Company v.

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.