Case law

Allum v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

The mats were assessed at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 439 of the tariff act of 1909, which assessment was upheld by the board on the authority of United States v. Richter ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 167 ; T. … The case of United States v. Richter, supra, is much in point on this question.

Application of Dorris E. Spears

223 F.2d 956 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1955

General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242 , [ 66 S.Ct. 81, 84 , 90 L.Ed. 43 ] 67 U.S.P.Q. 155 . … Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U.S. 1 , 5 S.Ct. 1042 , 29 L.Ed. 76 . It is not invention to perceive that the product which others had produced possessed qualities they failed to detect. General Electric Co., supra.

In re Eickmeyer

602 F.2d 974 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1979

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”), rejecting claims 28, 31, 34-37, and 40. 1 We reverse. … Squires v. Corbett, 560 F.2d 424 , 194 USPQ 513 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1977). If it is determined that an applicant cannot use a 131 affidavit to antedate the effective date of a U.

Decorated Metal Manufacturing Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1924

Co. v. … The judgment of the board is affirmed.

Poole Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 271 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1919

The ruling in Marriott v. Brune was approved and applied in United States v. Southmayd ( 9 How., 637 ), and Lawrence v. … Habicht v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 53 ; T. D. 31031); United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. D. 32074); United States v. Zito ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 209 ; T. D. 32531).

United States v. Downing

7 Ct. Cust. 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1917

United States v. Spingarn Bros. (T. D. 34002). … In the case of United States v. Spingarn ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 2 ; T.

In re Smith

77 F.2d 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1935

We think the board, in its approval of the first ground of rejection of the examiner, arrived at the right conclusion, and its apt language, above quoted, meets with our approval. … Haber, 275 Fed. 346 , which involved the “Kewpie” doll, and Borgfeldt & Co. v. Weiss, 265 Fed. 268 , which involved the “ Splashme ” and “ Duckme ” bathing dolls.

In re Jolly

172 F.2d 566 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1949

In the case of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. … See also Standard Brands, Inc. v. National Grain Yeast Corp., 308 U.

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.

In Re Copeman

135 F.2d 349 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

In In re Fischer, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1077, 57 F.2d 369, 370 , this court said: “On the question of double patenting, appellant cites Traitel Marble Co. v. [U. T.] … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming that of the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims, is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Warren C. Conover

304 F.2d 680 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 18, 1962

In urging that the analysis of the majority of- the board was correct, the solicitor in his brief states: "It is further suggested that the majority of the Board was correct in holding that the procedure of plating a part … We think the situation here is closely analogous to the situation which was before the Supreme Court in Eibel Process Company v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Company, 261 U.S. 45 , 43 S.Ct. 322 , 67 L.Ed. 523 .

Park & Tilford v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 34 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 18, 1910

In Isaacs v. Jonas ( 148 U. … D. 28044); United States v. Mathews (78 Fed. Rep., 345); Wanamaker v. Cooper (69 Fed. Rep., 465).

Dubbs v. Beatie

71 F.2d 302 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

. *1244 Brogden v. Slater, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988; In re Nicolson, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1468, 49 F. (2d) 961. … Therefore the case of Oldroyd v. Morgan, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1111, 57 F. (2d) 358, relied upon by appellee, is not applicable to the case at bar.

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.

In re May

574 F.2d 1082 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1978

We cannot accept the board’s analysis. In effect, the board cast its conclusion of obviousness in concrete. … of Florida in the case of Eli Lilly & Co. v.

In re Henatsch

298 F.2d 954 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1962

I would affirm the action of the board as to all claims. . … See also, Lincoln Engineering Co. of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545 , 58 S.Ct. 662 , 82 L.Ed. 1008 and Rogers v. Alemite Corp., 298 U.S. 415 , 56 S.Ct. 787 , 80 L.Ed. 1251 .

St. Elmo Cigar Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 153 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

See also Stone & Downer Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 513, 515 ; T. D. 31534); Carson v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 105, 109 ; T. D. 31656); United States v. Wertheimer & Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. … D. 32204); United States v. Germain (3 Ct.,Cust. Appls., 321, 325; T. D. 32620). In Lorsch & Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93, 94-95 ; T.

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.

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 .

Martin J. Blickstein and Martin A. Mittler v. Hugo Seiden

378 F.2d 988 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

The board concluded: Considering all of the evidence and giving all competent testimony making up the continuous story its proper place and weight, Patterson et al. v. … Gordon v. Hubbard, 347 F.2d 1001, 52 . CCPA 1598.