Case law

In re Ashbaugh

173 F.2d 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1949

As pointed out in the brief of the solicitor, that question has been well settled in the case of Expanded Metal Company v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366 . … For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Becket v. Arness

112 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1940

A case considerably in point with the issue here involved is Wemple et al. v. Peirce et al., 22 C. C. P. A. … See Sachs v. Wadsworth, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1284, 48 F. (2d) 928.

Bush & Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1920

The board affirmed the decision of the collector. Importers appeal. … See also United States v. Isaacs ( 148 U. S., 654 ) and United States v. Schoverling ( 146 U. S., 76 ). There is another consideration pertinent.

United Cigar Stores Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 66 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1913

United States v. Nordlinger (121 Fed , 690, 693); Toplitz v. Hedden ( 33 Fed., 617 ); Marvel v. Merritt ( 116 U. S., 11 -12). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed. Barber, Judge, did not participate in this decision.

Schmitt v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 312 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1914

This court in Bradley Martin, jr., v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 134 ; T. … So, in Stern Bros. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 405 ; T.

In re Storsand

159 F.2d 446 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

D. 13 is authority for a refusal by the Board to consider new claims. … A (Patents) 799, 146 F. (2d) 277, 64 USPQ 241 ; Gynex Corporation et al. v. Dilex Institute of Feminine Hygiene, Inc., et al., 85 F. (2d) 103; General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 .

Application of Gerald McLaughlin

443 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1971

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). We emphasize that such is true even where, as here, the claimed invention involves only relatively simple mechanical concepts. … The board did not comment on either affidavit in its opinion.

Fink v. Humel

70 F.2d 115 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1934

Sachs v. Wadsworth, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1284, 48 F. (2d) 928; Buchanan v. Lademann, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 836, 54 F. (2d) 425. … We regard this case as being somewhat analogous to that of James v. Stimson, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1255, 49 F. (2d) 493. The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed, and priority awarded to the senior party, Fink.

Application of Wilhelm Neugebauer, Martha Tomanek and Hans Behmenburg

330 F.2d 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1964

See, e. g., Kropa v. Robie et al., 187 F.2d 150 , 38 CCPA 858, and cases cited therein. We know no general rule for deciding the weight to be given preamples as positive structural limitations. … As did the board, we look to the specification to see what appellants’ claims mean.

In re Fullam

161 F.2d 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1947

(Patents) 1235, 83 F. (2d) 1001, 30 USPQ 13 ; Koebel et al. v. Coe, supra; and Sylvania Industrial Corp. v. Visking Corp., 132 F. (2d) 947, 56 USPQ 190 . … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Albert Lorenz v. Charles W. Finkl

333 F.2d 885 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1964

stating: “Whether or not an application involved in interference has become abandoned is a question which is ancillary to priority and can be considered in due course by the tribunals passing on that question (Bain et al. v. … That question having been properly •raised by Pinkl, the board had the responsibility of deciding it. Bain v. Hasselstrom, 165 F.2d 436 , 35 CCPA 811. For the foregoing reasons, the decision •of the board is affirmed.

Dewalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.

289 F.2d 656 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1961

The board did not rule specifically on the question whether “Power Shop” is a descriptive term, for which reason DeWalt says that that issue was never reached by the board. … The board did, however, make the following statement from which we think it may reasonably be inferred that the board did consider the term to be descriptive: * * * opposer and its franchised dealers have, since September

Nelson v. Berry

59 F.2d 351 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1932

District Court for the] Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,” the style of which is The Cleveland Trust Company v. Nelson et al. It is claimed that said suit is an equity proceeding under section 4915, R. … We find no error in the decisions of the Board of Appeals and each of them is affirmed.

Peabody & Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 220 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1920

Foppes et al. v. Magone ( 40 Fed., 570 ). … Graser-Rothe v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 142 ; T. D. 36459).

In re Ideal Industries, Inc.

508 F.2d 1336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1975

The basis of our disagreement with the board’s conclusion is fairly simple and clearcut but its explanation requires further factual background. … The board cited no further cases in support of the refusal to register. The solicitor relies on two of our decisions: In re Preformed Line Products Co., 323 F.2d 1007 , 51 CCPA 775 (1963), and Roselux Chemical Co. v.

Application of Mervyn Cademartori

397 F.2d 992 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1968

See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 35 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 , (1966). Appellant submitted evidence of commercial success both before and after his hearing before the board. … The board did not consider the latter evidence. Appellant argues that the board thereby committed error.

Jan A. Rajchman and Arthur W. Lo v. Newton F. Lockhart

339 F.2d 233 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1964

Smith v. Wehn, 318 F.2d 325 , 50 CCPA 1544. 1 The counts, with the critical portions italicized, read: “1. … Noting that Liebscher v.

In re Abele

684 F.2d 902 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 5, 1982

However, we agree with appellants that the second step of the analysis is not as limited as the board held it to be. B In Gottschalk v. … In Diamond v.

Application of Joseph D. Fisher

307 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 21, 1962

[Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 , 24 L.Ed. 235 .] … In Kuehmsted v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co., 179 F. 701 (7th Cir. 1910), cert. denied, 220 U.S. 622 , 31 S.Ct. 724 , 55 L.Ed. 613 (1911); Union Carbide Co. v.

Harvard University v. U.S. Department of Commerce, Domestic & International Business Administration

576 F.2d 925 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1978

Both parties have agreed tbat the decision and judgment of this court dated December 1, 1977 in the consolidated appeals of Yale University v. … Department of Commerce, Domestic and International Business Administration, Office of Import Programs, No. 76-18, and Brown University v.