Case law

Application of Karl Ziegler, Heinz Breil, Erhard Holzkamp and Heinz Martin

347 F.2d 642 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1965

magnesium and zinc, 4 [II] said second component being a a heavy metal compound selected from the group consisting of [A] the salts and [B] the freshly precipitated [1] oxides and [2] hydroxides of metals of Groups IV-B, V-B … Accordingly we reverse the board as to claim 19.

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.

Isler & Guye v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1914

It is not claimed on the part of the Government that the collector’s assessment was correct, but it urges here that the board reached the right conclusion and that its judgment should be affirmed. In Thomass v. … Sykes v. Magone ( 38 Fed., 494 ), Murphy v. Arnson ( 96 U. S., 131 ), Weilbacher v. Merritt ( 37 Fed., 85 ), Rich v. United States ( 172 Fed., 293 ).

Swingline, Inc. v. I. B. Kleinert Rubber Company

399 F.2d 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 18, 1968

The parties propose to overrule the Board by their stipulation and the proposed order they are requesting the Court to sign. … That there is no necessity for the majority action here is clearly evident from the action taken by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Viber Co. v. Ren-ner Co., 156 USPQ 160 (1967).

In re Jennings

133 F.2d 906 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

One of the latest cases upon the subject of indefiniteness of patent claims is that of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al, 304 U. … In support of the above holding we cited the case of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., et al., 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.

Harris v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

All of these have been fully examined in Vandegrift v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198 ; T. D. 32470); Harris v. United States (3 ibid., 265; T. D. 32570); and United States v. Harris (4 ibid., 116; T. … Vandegrift v. United States, supra.

In re Pierce

35 F.2d 781 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1929

The top of the gasket is V-shaped. Above the gasket is an open space extending to the top of the chamber, the top of the chamber having a shoulder on the outside. … The Board of Appeals held that it was bound by this decision. We are unable to see any reason why this decision of the commissioner should be disturbed. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Robert Joly and Julien Warnant

376 F.2d 906 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1967

The Board of Appeals rejected all claims for appellants’ failure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. … Similar arguments were presented to, and rejected by, the Supreme Court in Brenner v.

Larson v. Eicher

49 F.2d 1029 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1931

Morton v. Sydney M. Cadwell, 39 F.(2d) 704 , 17 C. C. P. A. 1024, and eases therein cited; St. John et al. v. Schulze, 47 F.(2d) 798 , 18 C. C. P. A.-. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Franz

190 F.2d 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 , 71 S.Ct. 127 . … United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 40 , 71 S.Ct. 104 . *90 However, as a necessary consequence of its decision in Baldwin Co. v. R. S.

Duemler v. McCabe

67 F.2d 911 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1933

In Parker v. Appert, 8 App. D. … Evans v. Associated Automatic Sprinkler Co. (C. C. A.) 241 F. 252 .

Lyon v. Ryerson

103 F.2d 913 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1939

In Kitselman v. Reid et al., 1920 C. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Voit

152 F.2d 987 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1946

The board sustained the examiner’s rejection of all the claims on prior art. … The affidavits were, given: consideration ,by both the examiner and the board.

Application of Fisher Scientific Company

440 F.2d 434 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1971

American Drill Bushing Co. v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 342 F.2d 1019 , 52 CCPA 1173 (1965); Magnavox Co. v. Multivox Corp. of America, 341 F.2d 139 , 52 CCPA 1025 (1965). … We are not, however, persuaded that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board committed reversible error in its refusal of registration of appellant’s mark “PolyPac.” The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

Application of Edward Burton Legrice

301 F.2d 929 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 11, 1962

The unique nature of a plant patent was recognized by the Patent Office Board of Interference Examiners in Dunn v. Ragin v. … It is our view that these decisions either have not been properly interpreted by the board in relying on them to support its view or that they are not controlling upon the issue here. The board relies heavily on Cohn v.

In Re Arnold

185 F.2d 686 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1950

Operating in accordance with Pitman’s process was held by the board to satisfy that step. … Davison Chemical Corp. v. Joliet Chemicals Inc., 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 793 , certiorari denied, 71 S.Ct. 45 ; Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 , 68 S.Ct. 440 , 92 L.Ed. 588 ; Allen v.

Application of Hugh Harper Gibbs and Richard Norman Griffin

437 F.2d 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1971

The District Court for the District of Connecticut followed the Shipp case in Benoit v. … Still later the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals cited its own Shipp opinion with approval in Micon v.

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.

Snow's United States Sample Express Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 17 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 19, 1917

United States v. Buss & Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 110 ; T. D. 34138). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.