Case law

In re Mead

581 F.2d 251 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1978

Citing Seymour v. … Parker was cited by the Supreme Court in United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v.

In re 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 , 67 U. S. P. Q. 155. … Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1 . It is not invention to perceive that the product which others had produced possessed qualities they failed to detect. General Electric Co., sufra.

Lehn & Fink Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 359 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1924

—Stein, Hirsch & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 154 , T. D. 35397); Kupfer Bros. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 86 , T. D. 36423). As was said in United States v. Marsching ( 1 Ct. Cust. … The Board of General Appraisers held the importation in this case dutiable under paragraph 27. With this decision we concur and the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

In re Carreira

532 F.2d 1356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1976

We pointed out in Mathews that the origin of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) is the Supreme Court decision in Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U.S. 390 , 46 S.Ct. 324 , 70 L.Ed. 651 (1926). Therein Mr. … The decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED

In re Richardson

143 F.2d 616 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

In Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. … However, in view of our disagreement with the holding of the board that the claims under discussion do not read upon appellant’s parent case, and in view of the fact that the board reached its conclusions on that theory,

Preston v. White

92 F.2d 813 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1937

We cited the cases of MacGregor v. Chesterfield and Heidbrink v. McKesson, supra, and followed the doctrine announced therein. … Again, in Bloodheart v. Levernier, 20 C. C. P. A.

Application of Norman A. Meinhardt

392 F.2d 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1968

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). … Thus, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . The board consisted of Messrs. Behrens, Examiner-in-Chief, and Stone and Campbell, Acting Examiners-in-Chief.

United States v. Sears

11 Ct. Cust. 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

In the recent case of Cochran Co. v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 62 ; T. … The decision of the board is accordingly affirmed.

Hudson Forwarding & Shipping Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 94 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

Bland, Judge, delivered tlie opinion of the court: This appeal was briefed, argued, and submitted with Yohalem & Diamand v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 92 , T. … Under the authority of the above-cited case and the cases cited therein, the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers overruling the protests is reversed.

United States v. Tappenbeck

7 Ct. Cust. 17 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

found in the board’s opinion. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. ''

Lunham & Moore v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1911

United States v. Prosser ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 22 ; T. D. 30848). Maldonado v. United States (176 Fed. Rep., 737). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed..

Kayser & Co. v. Pevny

13 Ct. Cust. 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1926

In Sloane v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 463 , T. … In United States v. Field, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 183 , T.

Application of Charles R. Barr

444 F.2d 588 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 7, 1971

V. Does claim 25 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which appellants regard as their invention? … See also Locklin v.

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 .

Application of Ripper

171 F.2d 297 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

Patent Office, and there is no mention in the decision of the board of those affidavits. … For the reasons hereinbefore set out, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Johnson

454 F.2d 1179 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1972

As the board said, it is a coined term. … However, as Judge Bland of this court wrote many years ago in one of the “Chicken of the Sea” cases, Van Camp Sea Food Co. v. Alexander B.

American Express Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 490 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 20, 1913

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest, from which decision the importers now prosecute and appeal to this court. … The case of United States v. McSorley ( 65 Fed., 492 ) is cited by the Government and was relied upon as authority by the board; but that decision is not in line with the present case.

Clayton Mark & Company v. Keystone Brass and Rubber Co.

279 F.2d 279 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 14, 1960

Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. Savatux Facing Company, Cust. & Pat. App., 277 F.2d 944 . … The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed.

Sterling Bronze Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 338 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

—May Co. v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 266 ; T. D. 40270); Diana et al v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 290 ; T. D. 40295). … The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Harder v. Hayward

150 F.2d 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1945

On appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Primary Examiner. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed.