Case law

In re McKee

75 F.2d 991 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1935

With regard to the ground of rejection upon which the board based its affirmance of the examiner’s decision, the board relied upon the case of American Fruit Growers, Incorporated, v. Brogdex Co., 283 U. … Appellant attempts to distinguish the case at bar from the case of American Fruit Growers, Incorporated, v.

In Re Mann

47 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1931

The Board of Appeals held that the claims were anticipated by the Koppelman and Cooper reference, and apparently the Miller reference was not relied upon by the board. … To the same effect is a later decision by the Commissioner •of Patents in the case of Haight v. Nell, 354 O. G. 247 ,1927 C. D. 4.

Kee Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 105 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the action of the collector. … Diana et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 290 , T. D. 40295. In the case of Sterling Bronze Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 338 , T.

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 198 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1927

The Board of General Appraisers has explicitly found that the typical sample is one blanket. … United States v. Citroen, 223 U. S. 407 at 415 ; Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694 at 704 .

Adam v. Roth

173 F.2d 259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1949

(Castricone v. McCabe 520 O. G. 269 , 1940 C. D. 536, 27 C. C. P. A. [Patents] 1198, [111 F. (2d) 653, 45 USPQ 426 ]; George v. Karsel 518 O. G. 776 , 1940 C. D. 401, 27 C. C. P. A. … [Patents] 1063, [111 F. (2d) 148, 45 USPQ 151 ]; Muessner et al. v. Hosclike et al. [sic Miessner v. Hoschke] 545 O. G. 443 , 1942 C. D. 103, 76 App. D. C. 343 [131 F. (2d) 865, 55 USPQ 221 ]).

Sheldon v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 474 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1925

That question was so summarily disposed of by the board that we are unable to learn the reasons which led it to that conclusion nor does the Government here present anything that supports it. In United States v. … We upheld this contention of the importers which had been sustained by the board.

Application of John Ferguson Harris, Jr., and Donald Irwin McCane

324 F.2d 316 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1963

In addition to the references relied on by the board, the patents to Keel and McCane are included in the record on appeal, although they were not before the board until the Petition for Reconsideration. … V/hat might appear to be obvious to one skilled in the art may well be shown to be non-obvious subject matter by a clear showing of obstacles which the art had theretofore found insurmountable.

In Re Merz

97 F.2d 599 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

He has merely purified them; No sound basis of distinction between the purification of elements, such as were present in the cases of General Electric Co. v. … Appellant has stressed and relies largely upon the celebrated “aspirin” case— Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. v. Kuehmsted, C.C., 171 F. 887 .

Yeates v. Baer

143 F.2d 607 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

The Board erred in not finding Yeates to be the first to conceive. 15. The Board erred in not finding Yeates to be the first to reduce to practice. $ ‡ $ $ $ $ $ 29. … (Patents) 1241, 83 F. (2d) 904, 30 USPQ 20 ; Mas v. Root, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 819, 54 F. (2d) 435, 12 USPQ 13 ; Southgate v. Greene, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1129, 57 F. (2d) 374, 13 USPQ 160 .

In re Clinton

527 F.2d 1226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 15, 1976

The board affirmed each rejection. … Conclusion The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Huddleston

77 F.2d 501 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1935

Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 867, 54 F. (2d) 821, and cases cited, including Field, v. Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1502, 49 F. (2d) 1072. *1274 In Atherton v. … In Field v.

United States v. Godillot

3 Ct. Cust. 128 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U. S., 252, 258 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Ernst Bartholome, Erwin Lehrer and Friedrich Wilhelm Schierwater

386 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1967

See Patterson v. Hauck, 341 F.2d 131 , 52 CCPA 987 (1965); In re Gay, supra; Kollsman v. Ladd, 226 F.Supp. 186 (D.D.C.1964). … Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 , 37 S.Ct. 82 , 61 L.Ed. 286 , (1916). .

Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. United States

33 C.C.P.A. 152 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. United States, 6 Cust. Ct. 237 , C. D. 471. … See United States v. B. Holman, Inc., 29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 3, C. A. D. 164.

Application of Henry P. Wohnsiedler and Clayton J. Ammondson

315 F.2d 934 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1963

We, therefore, affirm the board’s rejection of claims 4 and 12 to 14. … We have recently had occasion to state the law applicable in a ease such as this in Jepson v.

Bush & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1922

From that it follows that the hydrogenation of the oil did not result in a chemical compound and the finding of the board to that effect must therefore be sustained.—United States v. Rockhill & Vietor et al. ( 10 Ct. … The decision of the board overruling the protest without approving the action of the collector is therefore affirmed.

In re Hubbell

164 F.2d 700 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 29, 1947

In the case of Potts v. Creager, 155 U. … The law is well stated in Canda et al. v.

Newport Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 115 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Miller v. Nemmer

179 F.2d 979 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

Under the existing circumstances the question of diligence cannot arise (McParland v. Beall, 231 O.G. 605 ; 1916 C.D. 231; 45 App.D.C. [162]; Whittier v. Borchardt, 588 O.G. 6 ; 1946 C.D. 361; 33 C.C.P.A. … Woolen Company v.

United States v. Tower & Sons

15 Ct. Cust. 83 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1927

Norton v. Shelby County, 118.U. S. 425; Ex parte Henry Ward, 173 U. S. 452 . In the case of Norton v. … Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. D. 41318.