Case law

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.

Ciric v. Flanigen

511 F.2d 1182 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1975

Thus, in Silvestri v. … Parker v.

Wilkes-Barre Lace Mfg. Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 519 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1923

Ball v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 143 ); Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States ( 171 U. S. 210 ); United States v. Richter ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 167 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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).

Application of Glenn T. Seaborg

328 F.2d 996 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1964

This court affirmed the action of the board and summarized the position of the examiner and the board in the following language ( 37 C.C.P.A. at 1105 , 182 F.2d at 636 ) : “Both the Primary Examiner and the board were of … The Supreme Court, in United Carbon Co. v.

Alexander Carusi and Robert F. Kolec v. Robert Looker

342 F.2d 112 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1965

Carusi relies on the case of Taylor v. … (Emphasis board’s.) -x- x-» We consider apposite here the language of MacGregor v. Johnston, 71 F.2d 165 , 21 CCPA 1216, quoted with approval by this court in Chandler v. Mock, 150 F.2d 563 , 32 CCPA 1183.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cohn v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 339 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1914

The protest was submitted upon evidence to the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled, from which decision the importers now appeal. At the hearing before the board the record in the case of Lorsch & Co. v. … The decision in the Lorsch case, sufra, is approved, and in conformity therewith the decision of the board is affirmed.

Williams v. Handschiegl

48 F.2d 395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U. S. 27 , 42 S. Ct. 20 , 66 L. Ed. 112 . Furthermore, all of the testimony relating to the tests was limited to the use of the method in the production of motion pictures. … , the board had no authority to consider them for the purpose of supplementing appellee’s disclosure.

United States v. White

3 Ct. Cust. 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1912

D. 23386); United States v. Lamb, supra. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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).

Application of McCarn

212 F.2d 797 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1954

Claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 were considered by the Board to be illustrative and they read as follows: “4. … Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 464 , 55 S.Ct. 449 , 79 L.Ed. 997 .

In re Boesch

617 F.2d 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1980

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) which sustained the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of appellants’ claims 1 1 and 8-15 in view of Lamb 2 and … The Board The board agreed with the examiner that the claimed alloys were prima facie obvious from the prior art, noting that there was no substantial disagreement that both Pohl-man et al. and Lamb disclose alloys having

In Re Ernst

71 F.2d 169 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

In the case of American Lava Co. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed. HATFIELD, Associate Judge, did not participate.

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).

Application of Alexander M. Wright

256 F.2d 583 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1958

At the same time, in order that the fuel flow (Wt) be a function of airplane speed (V), it is essential that at least one of the pressures Pe, P0, or P£ (to which 0 applies) be a measure of airplane speed (V). … But this is clearly not the case, because even the pressure (P0), which is more nearly related to (V) than either (Pe) or (P£) does not measure airplane speed (V), since (P0) is the static pressure of the air entering Sedille

In re Fischer

58 F.2d 1060 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477 . The case of In re Trester, supra, involved a device for constructing concrete curbs. … As is said in Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U.