Case law

United States v. Imperial Wall Paper Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

Sample forwarded to the Board of G. A. … Arthur v. Moller, 97 U. S. 365 ; Neal v. Clark, 95 U. S. 704 .

In re Ewert

77 F.2d 498 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1935

It is stated by the Board of Appeals that the appellant has obtained a patent upon a method of producing these couplings by hob generation, No. 1,905,271, granted April 25, 1933, and it is thought by the Board of Appeals … Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 356 . The best that can be claimed for such generated surfaces is that they are constructed more rapidly and more economically. This, in itself, does not impart patentability.

In re Chatfield

545 F.2d 152 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1976

Opinion The board took the position that the claims are drawn to non-statutory subject matter under the Supreme Court’s decision in Gottschalk v. … Cohens v.

In Re Wadman

94 F.2d 993 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1938

Claims 17 and 19 were allowed by the Board. Ten apparatus claims including 17 and 19, have been allowed. … See, also, Mantle Lamp Company v. Aluminum Products Co., 301 U.S. 544 , 57 S.Ct. 837 , 81 L.Ed. 1277 .

United States v. Hobbs

3 Ct. Cust. 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest with the single statement: This is apparently in conflict with the decision of the Customs Court in United States v. Bennett (T, D. 31975). … Komada v. United States ( 215 U.

Application of John D. Sutherland, Jr

347 F.2d 1009 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 22, 1965

For an interesting old case holding both patents valid in a somewhat similar situation, see McMillan v. Rees, 1 F. 722 (C.C.W.D.Pa., 1880). The examiner seems to have been led astray by these considerations. … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. . Stringham, “Double Patenting,” (1933), Chap. II. .

Application of Cecil L. Tansel

253 F.2d 241 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1958

In support of its holding, the board relied on the following statement in Mergenthaler v. … The Mergenthaler decision has been repeatedly cited and approved by this court, Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 647; Cooper v. Hubbell, 53 F.2d 1072 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 790; Rowe v.

Siegman v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 195 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1916

As to all' the other items represented by the several exhibits the board overruled the protest, and from that part of the board’s decision the importers appealed. … Horstman v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 458 ; T. D. 35986).

Woodruff & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 186 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in the case of United States v. Harden (68 Fed. … D. 28170), in which case the Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the views of the dissenting opinion and reversed the board.

Meyer v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 312 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1918

United States v. Wyman ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264 ; T. D. 33485); United States v. Swedish Produce Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223 ; T. D. 33437); United States v. Proctor ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 44 ; T. … D. 34091); Oberle & Henry v. *314 United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 404 ; T. D. 36979); United States v. Nozaki ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286 ; T. D. 34471); and note particularly United States v. Rice ( 5 Ct. Cust.

Simpson v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

It was said by this court in Gardner v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 477; T. … Tbe decision of tbe Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Application of Henze

181 F.2d 196 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

When the appellant appeal *198 ed to the Patent Office Board of Appeals the decision of the examiner was, on December 12, 1947, affirmed. … General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242, 249 , 66 S.Ct. 81, 84 , 90 L.Ed. 43 .

Application of John Charles Cavanagh

436 F.2d 491 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1971

There remain for brief consideration appellant’s Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), arguments. Essentially these fail because they are only arguments, unsupported by evidence. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

Smith & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1918

The board held that the question was ruled by United States v. Wakem ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 411 ; T. … S., 132 ) and Koscherak v. United States ( 98 Fed., 596 ).

Application of Carl W. Walter

292 F.2d 547 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 14, 1961

In Brand v. … Giambalvo v.

Wood v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338 ; T. D. 32076); Vitelli & Son v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 171 ; T. D. 32460); Earnshaw v. Cadwallader ( 145 U. S., 247 ); Seeberger v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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.

Application of Wallace A. Shelby, Jr

311 F.2d 807 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

The John patent was not relied upon by the board and will not be described or discussed. … Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366 , 29 S.Ct. 652 , 53 L.Ed. 1034 . For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals as to claim 1. Reversed.

In re Cornell

150 F.2d 569 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1945

In Black-Clawson Company v. Central Engineering and Patents Corp., 83 F. (2d) 116, 29 U. S. P. Q. 253, C. C. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Geigy Chemical Corporation v. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc.

438 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1971

438 F.2d 1005 GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a New York Corporation, Substituted for Geigy Chemical Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant, v. ATLAS CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 8441. … Appellant has persuaded us that the board erred and we therefore reverse.