Case law

Application of Lionel Alexander Bethune Pilkington

411 F.2d 1345 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1969

This appeal is from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejec *1346 tions of the only claim in appellant’s application 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and as an improper product-by-process claim. … See also Tri-Wall Containers, Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 408 F.2d 748 , and cases therein.

In re Huddleston

77 F.2d 501 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1935

Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 867, 54 F. (2d) 821, and cases cited, including Field, v. Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1502, 49 F. (2d) 1072. *1274 In Atherton v. … In Field v.

United States v. Tower & Sons

9 Ct. Cust. 135 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1919

In United States v. Saunders ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 82 ; T. … of the board should be reversed, without affirming the decision of the collector.

Avery v. Chase

101 F.2d 205 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1939

The following cases are in point and add no such limitations to the doctrine as are stated in Re Martin, supra; Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App.D.C. 535 ; New Departure Mfg. Co. v. … Horace Koechlin et al. v.

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.

Morse Bros. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 553 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

V. … Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 519 .

Diamond Alkali Company v. Dundee Cement Company

343 F.2d 781 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1965

This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wherein the board dismissed the opposition 1 of the appellant, Diamond Alkali Company, which opposition was instituted against an application 2 of … Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank & Supply Co., 277 F.2d 192, 196 , 47 CCPA 898, 902.

In re Charman

89 F.2d 667 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1937

possible to do in a laboratory, actual working conditions”; that he found that the “effect of molten metal upon gaskets in an assembly of mold and hot top would be essentially the same whether the gasket was made from ordinary v/ … n,treated corrugated board or from the same type of corrugated board treated with a fire-proofing agent, in other words deponent found that the corrugated board in each instance was destroyed for approximately the same distance

In re Ogiue

517 F.2d 1382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1975

The board in Embree cited Lyon v. Boh, 10 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1926). … The board did not hold that the application supported the suggested claim, nor can we reach such a conclusion from reading the board’s opinion. In Lyon v.

Grundy v. Van Leir

75 F.2d 503 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1935

It was the view of the dissenting member of the Board of Appeals that the evidence shows Van Leir “ was not diligent for a time.” … Mortocello v. Louis Kobash, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1095, 39 F. (2d) 677, with its citations. No contention to the contrary is made in the case at bar.

Yeates v. Baer

143 F.2d 607 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

The Board erred in not finding Yeates to be the first to conceive. 15. The Board erred in not finding Yeates to be the first to reduce to practice. $ ‡ $ $ $ $ $ 29. … (Patents) 1241, 83 F. (2d) 904, 30 USPQ 20 ; Mas v. Root, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 819, 54 F. (2d) 435, 12 USPQ 13 ; Southgate v. Greene, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1129, 57 F. (2d) 374, 13 USPQ 160 .

Brogden v. Henry

69 F.2d 978 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1934

. *1049 The doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, supra, does not apply because, as is pointed out by the board, the evidence does not show that Henry suppressed, concealed, or abandoned his invention. Severson v. … (Patents) 946, 64 F. (2d) 694; Rolfe v. Kaisling, 32 App.D.C. 582, 588 ; Callaghan v. Gouverneur et al., 295 Fed. 961 , 54 App.D.C. 140 .

Application of John Ferguson Harris, Jr., and Donald Irwin McCane

324 F.2d 316 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1963

In addition to the references relied on by the board, the patents to Keel and McCane are included in the record on appeal, although they were not before the board until the Petition for Reconsideration. … V/hat might appear to be obvious to one skilled in the art may well be shown to be non-obvious subject matter by a clear showing of obstacles which the art had theretofore found insurmountable.

Department of Energy v. Westland

565 F.2d 685 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1977

Selman v. United States, 498 F.2d 1354 , 1358—59, 204 Ct.Cl. 675 (1974); Gardner & North Roofing & Siding Corp. v. … Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 329 , 464 F.2d 838, 842 (1972); National School of Aeronautics, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 933, 938 , 135 Ct.Cl. 343 (1956); see United States v.

Samuel P. McCutchen Jr., and Jack E. Eskilson v. Francis A. Oliver

367 F.2d 609 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 27, 1966

See also Swain et al. v. Crittendon, 332 F.2d 820 , 51 CCPA 1459. … See McKee v. Noonan, 86 F.2d 986 , 24 CCPA Patents, 784; Lindley v. Shepherd, 58 App.D.C. 31 , 24 F.2d 606 .

In re Dardick

496 F.2d 1234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1974

As we have already indicated, the board focused on the fact that in test #1 all the bullets tumbled. … See Voisinet v. Coglianese, 455 F.2d 1064 , 59 CCPA 958 (1972) and Knowles v. Tibbetts, 347 F.2d 591 , 52 CCPA 1800 (1965).

Bray v. Tears

102 F.2d 877 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

Campbell v. Gilpin, 1926 C. … See Hausman v. Hochman, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1162, 83 F. (2d) 703.

In re Otto

121 F.2d 553 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 2, 1941

The law is well stated in Canda et al. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming that of the examiner in rejecting claims 17, 32 and 34, is reversed.

Geo. A. Hormel & Co. (Assignee of Stark, Wetzel & Co., Inc.) v. Hereford Heaven Brands, Inc.

341 F.2d 158 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1965

We do not agree with the board. There is no significant difference between the goods of the parties. … We find appellee’s reliance on Roger & Gallet v.

Elmer J. Lawson, George M. Fohlen, and Aaron Addelston v. William F. Bruce and Joseph Seifter

222 F.2d 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1955

Somewhat simplified, the issue for determination by the Board of Patent Interferences amounted essentially to this: In Kyrides v. … Kyrides v. Anderson, supra. The decision of the majority of the Board of Patent Interferences is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Revised in 35 U.S.C. 1952 ed. § 112.