Case law

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.

Schenley Distillers, Inc. v. General Cigar Co., Inc.

427 F.2d 783 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1970

Waldes v. International Mfrs. Agency Inc., 237 F. 502 (S.D.N.Y.1916); Sweet Sue Kitchens, Inc. v. C-B Drug Co., 159 USPQ 242 (T.T.A.B.1968); Geo. A. Dickel Co. v. Stephano Bros., supra; Phoenix Mfg. Co. v. Plymouth Mfg. … The decision of the board dismissing the opposition is affirmed. Affirmed.

George v. Karsel

111 F.2d 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1940

Both motions were denied by the Examiner of Interferences and such decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. … See Derby et. al. v. Whit worth, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 791, 62 F. (2d) 368.

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 .

Walsko v. Smith

102 F.2d 815 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1939

Duryea v. Rice, 28 App. D. C. 423, 434; Robinson v. Heising, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 895, 55 F. (2d) 472; Chapman v. Wintroath, supra. [ 252 U. S. 126 ]. … Brooks v. Carleton Ellis, a manuscript decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Cliief (predecessor of the present Board of Appeals) in interference No. 40,012, dated January 15, 1917.

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 Ulrich Finsterwalder

436 F.2d 1028 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1971

The board further found no patentable significance in any of the other features recited in the claims. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . U. S. Patent 3,003,219, October 10, 1961.

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).

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.

Chicago Pharmacal Company v. American Home Products Corporation

280 F.2d 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1960

Meyer Chemical Co. v. Anahist Co., Inc. (Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Co., Assignee, substituted), 263 F.2d 344 , 46 CCPA 784; Sundure Paint Corporation v. Maas & Waldstein Co., 267 F.2d 943 , 46 CCPA 926. … The board, in its decision stated the Red Book date to be 1958. Since the only Red Book pages of record are those of 1957, it appears that the board considered those instead of the 1958 pages.

Kenneth H. White v. Harold H. P. Lemmerman

341 F.2d 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

The board, in holding that the tests conducted by White prior to the filing of Lemmerman’s patent application were insufficient to establish reduction to practice, relied upon Larsen v. … Marzall, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 260 , 195 F.2d 200 (1952) and Elmore v. Schmitt, 278 F.2d 510 , 47 CCPA 958.

Heddon v. Cowdery

100 F.2d 426 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1938

Among these may be cited Ernest Hedenskoog v. John Cayton Backus, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1065, 48 F. (2d) 408; Smith v. Place, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1260, 84 F. (2d) 196; Myers v. Roethel, 24 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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.

Application of Shenango Ceramics, Inc

362 F.2d 287 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1966

Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169, 185 , 16 S.Ct. 1002 , 41 L.Ed. 118 (1896). … So far as is pertinent to registrability for federal trademark protection, we believe Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , 84 S.Ct. 784 , 11 L.Ed.2d 661 and Compco Corp. 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.

Newhall v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1913

In United States v. Danker ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 522 ; T. … In United States v. Sheldon ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485 ; T.

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.

National Biscuit Co. v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1933

Directions to so enter the goods had been given to Christie, Brown & Co. by Albert W. Kasten, the controller of appellant. … Wolf & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 589 , T. D. 41453; Taggesell Co. v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 15, T. D. 43318; Kennedy v. United States, 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 24, T.

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.