Case law

In Re Appelburg

37 F.2d 620 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

In this court, appellants call attention to the fact that the Board of Appeals in its decision comments upon the “removable” feature in the first four claims, and states that there was confusion before the Board concerning … C. 204, 19 F.(2d) 678 ; Elite Manufacturing Company v. Ashland Manufacturing Company, 235 F. 893 , 1917 C. D. 238. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

De Ronde v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 104 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

A similar question was before the Board of General Appraisers in United States v. Berlin Aniline Works, G. A. 6272 (T. D. 27054). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Charles Priesmeyer v. Stephen J. Rudy

411 F.2d 796 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1969

The following background information will facilitate understanding of the board’s decision on that issue. … The present situation *800 is also governed by Segall v. Sims, 276 F.2d 661 , 47 CCPA 886 (1960), where we stated: When an applicant copies a claim from a patent, he must show that he is entitled to make the claim.

Application of Roger A. Perkins and Max L. Pochon

346 F.2d 981 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1965

Appellants have not challenged the judicial notice taken by the board, and we thus accept that finding. … Appellants rely especially on In re Tanczyn, 202 F.2d 785 , 40 CCPA 886, and Rem-Cru Titanium, Inc. v. Watson, 147 F.Supp. 915 (D.D.C.1957).

Application of Warren

194 F.2d 715 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1952

In re Hoffmann, 58 F.2d 422 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1185; Nat Lewis Purses, Inc., v. Carole Bags, Inc., 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 475 . … In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Harlan v. Bregman

39 F.2d 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

(Seaberger v. Russell, 121 O. G. 2328 ; Rose v. Clifford & Newell, 135 O. G. 1361 ; Rolfe v. Kaisling v. Leeper, 143 O. G. 562 ; Walker v. Lederer, 179 O. G. 851 ; Hubbard v. Berg, 195 O. G. 818 ; Roe v. Hansom, 99 O. … G. 2550 ; Wyman v. Donnelly, 104 O. G. 310 .)

United States v. Hirsch, Stein & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1917

The court, by Montgomery, Presiding Judge, said: The opinion, of the board was in accord with the foregoing, but the collector’s action was reversed by the board on grounds not stated in the opinion, presumably on the *124 … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.

Harris v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

All of these have been fully examined in Vandegrift v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198 ; T. D. 32470); Harris v. United States (3 ibid., 265; T. D. 32570); and United States v. Harris (4 ibid., 116; T. … Vandegrift v. United States, supra.

Willenborg v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 451 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The board overruled the protest. … Wolff et al. v. United States ( 71 Fed., 291 ).” The court decision cited by the board is relevant to the point when a cord ceases to be such and passes into another tariff nomenclature.

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.

Application of Franz

190 F.2d 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 , 71 S.Ct. 127 . … United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 40 , 71 S.Ct. 104 . *90 However, as a necessary consequence of its decision in Baldwin Co. v. R. S.

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.

Hausman v. Hochman

83 F.2d 703 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1936

Neumair v. Malocsay, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1349, 77 F. (2d) 622, and cases cited. … We are of opinion, therefore, that the Board of Appeals reached the right conclusion. Accordingly, its decision is affirmed.