Case law

John E. Mahan v. Thomas F. Doumani and Clarence S. Coe, (Two Cases)

333 F.2d 896 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1964

Appellees rely on Den Beste v. Martin, 252 F.2d 302 , 45 CCPA 798; Fried et al. v. Murray et al., 268 F.2d 223 , 46 CCPA 914; and Farrington et al. v. … We find nothing in the Den Beste v. Martin, Fried et al. v. Murray et al. or Farrington et al. v. Mikeska cases, supra, which is inconsistent with the law as codified in 35 U.S.C. § 120 .

Gilbert R. Wolter, Alfred F. Ernstberger and Frederick J. Ritter v. Michael E. Belicka, Robert J. Kenny and Rodney Longin

409 F.2d 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1969

Kear v. Roder, 28 CCPA 774; * * * [ 115 F.2d 810 , 47 USPQ 458 ].” … Alpert v. Slatin 49 CCPA 1343; * * * [ 305 F.2d 891 ; 134 USPQ 296 ].

Application of Arthur Philip Jentoft

392 F.2d 633 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 18, 1968

[Emphasis added for reasons referred to later under “The Board Opinion.”] … This is amply demonstrated in a recent case, C-Thru Products, Inc. v. Uniflex, Inc., 262 F.Supp. 213 (E.D.N.Y.1966).

Downing v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 473 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

On the testimony the board found against the claim of appellants, and the finding is sustained by the real force and effect of the evidence. See United States v. Baumgarten & Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 321 ; T. … The decision .of the board is affirmed.

Hill v. Casler

102 F.2d 219 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1939

It is true, of course, as was said by us in Bryson v. Clarke, 25 C. C. P. A. … The appeal is dismissed as to counts 6 and 7, and as to count 4 the decision of the board is affirmed.

Peska v. Satomura

602 F.2d 969 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1979

This appeal is from an award of priority, by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Patent Interferences (“board”), of invention of the counts in issue (counts 2-7) to the senior party, Satomura. … Although Peska did not move to amend his first motion or file a petition to the Commissioner from the interference examiner’s refusal to transmit the motion to the primary examiner, Land v.

Application of Roy Sapp

324 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1963

The trenches between corrugations are V-shaped, the corrugations having relatively sharp ridges. The openings disclosed are of elongated rectangular form. … The board agreed that, since both forms of corrugations are disclosed to be old by the references, the particular form used, whether V-shaped or rounded, would appear to be largely a matter of choice.

In re Coey

190 F.2d 347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Lempco Products v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 6 Cir., 110 F.2d 307 ; In re Hock, 168 F.2d 540 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1235. We will consider the method claim 17 first. … Co. v. S. S.

Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

In United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Repogle

70 F.2d 375 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1934

The de-' cisión of the examiner was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of said office, and from the decision of the board the applicant has appealed to this court. Said claim 67 reads as follows: 67. … The rule recently laid down in Field v.

In re Kleinman

484 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 13, 1973

A composition of matter useful for application to injured mammalian tissue, consisting essentially of a solution of a monomer having the formula .CN ch2«=c / V C02R wherein R is alkyl, cyclohexyl, phenyl, 2 (2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy … As support for this argument they cite Dor-Seal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, 240 F.Supp. 857 (D.D.C.1965). We find no merit in this position.

Atwood-Stone Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1914

D. 29339), United States v. Devereux ( 135 Fed., 428 ), and Malouf v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 437 ; T. D. 31502). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Soccer Sport Supply Co.

507 F.2d 1400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1975

Also, as noted by the board, such advertisements show appellant’s design coupled with the marks “WORLD DOT,” “WORLD CUP,” or “TEL-STAR.” … Coca-Cola Co. v. Seven-Up Co., 497 F.2d 1351 (CCPA 1974).

In re Barnett

155 F.2d 540 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1946

board’s decision. … Dececo Co. v. [George E.] Gilchrist Co., 1 Cir., 125 F. 293 ; In re Prescott, 51 App.D.C. 281 , 278 F. 590 ; In re McConnell, 40 F.2d 567 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1139.”

Chandler v. Mock

150 F.2d 563 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1945

See Jacke v. Long (Jacke v. Goldsborough), 111 F.2d 184 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1147; Payne v. Hurley, 71 F.2d 208 , 21 C.C.A.P.A., Patents, 1144. … Co. v.

Bentkamp v. United States

40 C.C.P.A. 70 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1952

In United States v. Reed & Keller, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 504 , T. … Middleton v. United States, 28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 214, C. A. D. 148; United States v. J. M. Lehman Co., Inc., 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 106, T. D. 47081.

Donna L. Jones (Kratz), of the Estate of James J. Jones, Deceased v. Arthur E. Kuprion

225 F.2d 485 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 15, 1955

The board correctly held that the count should be given the broadest interpretation which it reasonably will support, citing Scott v. Longtin, 52 App.D.C. 102 , 281 F. 606 , 1922 C.D. 145. … Clark v. Camras, 204 F.2d 273 , 40 C.C.P.A., Patents, 963.

Golding Bros. Co. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1936

Co., Inc. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 396, T. … Co., Inc. v. United States, 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 590, T.

In re Sawyer

173 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

Chemicals Co. v. Carbide Corp., 315 U. S. 668, 676 . See also Parker and Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87, 99 , and Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 563, 571 . … See Avery v. Chase, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 823, 101 F. (2d) 205, 40 USPQ 343 . See also Winkelmann v. Calvert, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1206, 154 F. (2d) 1012, 69 USPQ 406 .

Application of Alvin E. Nehrenberg

280 F.2d 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1960

The requirements for a proper claim in such an art were summarized by the Supreme Court in General Electric Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.