Case law

Altman & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 174 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1921

the court’s decision is in conflict with its holding in the cases of Carter & Son v. … D. 35475) and United States v. Snow’s United States Sample Express Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 351 ; T. D. 37611). The case of Carter & Son v.

In Re Butler

37 F.2d 623 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

The Board of Appeals affirmed the action of the examiner, from which decision of the Board of Appeals, appellant has appealed to this court. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Andrews & Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 62 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

Taylor & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 15 ; United States v. Fensterer & Ruhe, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 . … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers should be, and the same is hereby, reversed.

In re Adamson

92 F.2d 717 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1937

Arnold v. United States, 147 U. S. 494 . … For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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.

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.

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.

Vincent J. Frilette and Paul B. Weisz v. Charles Newton Kimberlin, Jr. And Elroy Merle Gladrow

412 F.2d 1390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1969

Vandenberg v. Reynolds, 46 CCPA 938, 268 F.(2d) 744 , 122 USPQ 381 . The mention of these materials in Frilette’s laboratory notebook alone is not sufficient to establish corroboration. Reed v. … One of these is Hasselstrom v.

United States v. Isler

13 Ct. Cust. 485 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1926

The right in the Government to the duties on the goods became absolute and irrevocable upon their abandonment. *489 Tbe case of Uberti v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. … In accordance with the stipulation the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers as to claims 539, 540, and 545, is affirmed, and, as to all other claims, the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Servo Corporation of America v. Servo-Tek Products Co., Inc. (Electro-Devices, Inc., Assignee, Substituted)

289 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1961

Inc. v. Mezger Pharmacal Co., Inc., 228 F.2d 243 , 43 CCPA 703; Lauritzen and Co., Inc. v. The Borden Co., 44 CCPA 720, 239 F.2d 405 . Obviously the only similarity in the instant marks is in the prefix “Servo”. … May Department Stores Co. v. Schloss Bros. & Co., Inc., 234 F.2d *957 879, 43 CCPA 980, and cases cited therein.

Lang v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 85 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1914

Bayersdorfer v. United States ( 171 Fed., 286 ); United States v. Bayersdorfer ( 175 Fed., 959 ). … Hahn v. United States ( 100 Fed., 635 ); Ross v. Peaslee ( 20 Fed. Cas., 1241 -1242); Vandiver v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls.,. 505-507; T. D. 32246).

Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. Roger Louis Myers, D.B.A. Monopoles Alfred Rothschild

331 F.2d 606 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1964

See: Supreme Wine Co., Inc. v. American Distilling Company, 203 F.Supp. 736 (DCNY, 1962). … [All footnotes by board.] 2 . Reg. No. 662,688, issued June 3, 1958. 3 . Societe Anonyme Marne et Champagne v. Myers, 250 F.2d 374 , 45 CCPA 755 (1957).

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 439 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1927

In Finsilver, Still & Moss v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. … In Stone & Downer Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust.

In re Brennan

62 F.2d 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

The Board of Appeals affirmed the action of the examiner, and from the decision of the board appellant has appealed to this court. Claims 13 and 14 are illustrative and read: 13. … The board, relying upon Cochrane et al. v. Deener et al., 1877 C.

International Sales Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 506 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1925

—United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S. 16 ); Roger v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 201 ; T. D. 40181). … —United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S. 16, 25 ).

In re Buttolph

73 F.2d 936 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 24, 1934

As pointed out in the decision of Steenstrup v. Morton 382 O. … We agree with the board and the examiner that the term “ for positive column light ” is a limitation in said claims not disclosed in appellant’s application as filed. In the case of Braren v. Horner, 18 C. C . P. A.

Benedict v. Menninger

64 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1933

Gowen v. Hendry, 37 F.(2d) 426 , 17 C. C. P. A. 789. As to the issue concerning abandonment, we discern no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals. … Numerous authorities are cited by the Board of Appeals as sustaining the rule that an application effects a reduction to practice of everything disclosed therein regardless of what is claimed. Field v.

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.

Cross Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 196 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1917

There are various exhibits, aptly and correctly described in the opinion of the 'Board of General Appraisers, except that each of Exhibits 3 and 4 contains one thimble not mentioned by the board. … It was said in the case of United States v.

United States v. Mason Bros. & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 236 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

This holding was based upon the decision of the court in Downing v. United States (141 Fed. Rep., 490; T. D. 26454). *237 An examination of the act of 1897, which was construed in Downing v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed, and the assessment is affirmed.