Case law

Woolworth Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 176 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1925

The board held that its order permitting an amendment to the protest was invalid under the decision of this court in United States v. Neuman & Schwiers Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 207 , T. … This conclusion is supported by the general reasoning in the following cases heretofore decided by this court: Brown & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T. D. 40026; Scaramelli v. United States, 12 Ct.

Tower & Sons v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 157 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1921

—Smith, J., in Brown & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 415 ; T. D. 35977). … —United States v. Schoverling ( 146 U. S., 81 ) ; Hartranft v. Weigman ( 121 U. S., 609 ; Seegerber v. Farwell ( 139 U. S., 611 ; Magone v. Lockmeyer ( 139 U. S., 612 ); Merritt v. Welsh ( 104 U.

Southwestern Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 74 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

For “equipment” see Standard Dictionary and Rubey v. Coal & Mining Co., 21 Mo. Appls. 159, 169; People v. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Co., 176 Ill. 512, 522 ; National Bank v. G. C. & S. F. Ry. … D. 22433; United States v. One Hempen Cable, 27 Fed. Cas. 264, 265 ; United States v. 24 Coils of Cordage, 28 Fed. Cas. 276 -278; United States v. 23 Coils of Cordage, 28 Fed. Cas. 290 -292.

Horwath v. Lee

564 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 10, 1977

Frilette v. Kimberlin, 412 F.2d 1390 , 56 CCPA 1242 (1969). Horwath’s testimony, the board found, established an actual reduction to practice prior to November 17, 1969. … Brown v. Campbell, 41 App.D.C. 499, 501-02 , 1914 C.D. 170, 171-72 (1914).

Application of Felburg

211 F.2d 597 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1954

See for example the patent to Browne cited in the first Office action.” … In considering the various arguments advanced by the appellant in this appeal, it is at once apparent that the patent to Browne, referred to by the board, is not printed in the record.

United States v. Robinson

12 Ct. Cust. 145 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1924

States v. … v.

Shaw & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1922

—Brown v. Maryland ( 12 Wheat., 419 ); Almy v. California ( 24 How., 169 -173); Robbins v. Shelby County ( 120 U. S., 489 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers must therefore be affirmed.

Proctor Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 535 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1925

In our judgment it is a case of undervaluation, and additional duties were properly assessed, .and the board properly overruled the protest to the assessment and the liquidation of the entry.—Fougera & Co. v. … The board had no jurisdiction in such matters under the act of 1913.—Brown & Co. v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 ; T. D. 40026). The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Beadenkopf Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1918

Crimmins & Pierce et al. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 137 ; T. D. 35392); Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 104 ; T. D. 37221). … We do not lose sight of the fact that-some of the skins involved in the first Beadenkopf case are brown in color and if all of a major part of these importations were skins of that character, such fact might make against

James Stewart Walker v. James Bailey

245 F.2d 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1957

Martus & Becker v. Heise, 39 F.2d 715 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1083; and Farmer and Thomas v. Schweyer, 68 F.2d 961 , 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 865. As was said in Hull v. … See Russell v. Sisson, 55 App. D.C. 401 , 4 F.2d 1014 ; Farmer and Thomas v. Schweyer, supra; and Brown v. Barton, 102 F.2d 193 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 889.

United States v. Makaroff

16 Ct. Cust. 531 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1929

United States v. Brown & Co. et al., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. D. 38295; United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 40296; Cone & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 133 , T. … United States v. Brown & Co. et al., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. D. 38295; United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 40296; Cone & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 133 , T.

United States v. Heffernan Paper Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 593 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1926

Heffernan Paper Co. imported at New York September 4, 1924, 103 bales of brown sulphite Kraft wrapping paper weighing 42,294 pounds. … United States v. Philips Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 497 (501); Benkard v. Schell, 3 Fed. Cas. 193 (197); Grinnell v. Lawrence, 11 Fed. Cas. 54 ; Hutton v. Schell, 12 Fed. Cas. 1095 ; Gibb v. Washington, 10 Fed.

In Re Staeger

183 F.2d 99 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1950

Colouring can be carried out in the usual way, by admixture of pigments of an organic or inorganic nature, for example, sienna brown, red iron oxide, nigrosine, etc.” … We are not convinced of error on the part of the Board of Appeals, and its decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Tower & Sons

14 Ct. Cust. 421 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1927

Blair v. City of Waco, 75 Fed. 800 ; City of New Orleans v. Sanford, 137 La. 628 69 So. 35 ; MacMillan v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 466 ; Waddell v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. … S. 16, 21 ; Morrill v. Jones, 106 U. S. 466 . The judgment of the Board of United States General Appraisers (nów United States Customs Court) is affirmed. Hatfield, J., concurs in the conclusion.

In re Holmes

34 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

V. … We agree with the board as to these claims.

Sussman v. Cooper

537 F.2d 531 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1976

Fontijn v. Okamoto, supra. … Brown, Modern Optics 4, 138 & 444-46 (1965) and M. Garbuny, Optical Physics 91 & 240-41 (1965). . U.S. patent No. 2,398,799, issued April 23,1946.

Vandiver v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 338 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

On hearing before the Board of General Appraisers, the majority of the board held that the importer had not made out a case under this paragraph. General Appraiser Brown filed a dissenting opinion. … The decision of the board will be affirmed.

Torsten Hasselstrom and Malcolm C. Henry v. Blaine C. McKusick

324 F.2d 1013 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1963

The board relies on three cases in addition to Senkus v. Johnston as establishing that independent corroboration of an inventor’s testimony is essential to establish an actual reduction to practice, namely, Thurston v. … Wulff et al., Reed v. Cislak et al., and Searle v. Glarum et al.

Sandoz Chemical Works v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 466 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1926

The importer appealed in each instance and General Appraiser Brown, in each case found the value as entered. … Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States, supra.

Application of Harry Louis Yale

434 F.2d 666 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1970

The Board of Appeals affirmed that rejection. … The Von Bramer doctrine has been discussed by us at length on several occasions, one being In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006 , 51 CCPA 1254 (1964), which is relied upon by appellant and which states (at 1010 of 329 F.2d, at 1259