Case law

In Re Faustmann

155 F.2d 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

Justice Brown” in Northrup v. … Foster v. Crossin, C.C., 44 F. 62 .

Saklatwalla v. Marburg

172 F.2d 227 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1949

(Patents) 1208, 120 F. (2d) 380, 49 USPQ 707 ; Brown v. Edeler & Richardson, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) *797 1091, 110 F. (2d) 858, 45 USPQ 181 ; Pelzer v. Weaver, 25 C. C. P. A. … Ed. 985 ; Welling v. Crane (C. C.) 21 Fed. 707 ; Brady Brass Co. v. Ajax, 160 Fed. 84, 90 , 87 C. C. A. 240 ; Pittsburgh Iron and Steel Co. v. Seaman-Sleeth Co., 248 Fed. 705 , 160 C. C. A. 605 ; Miami Copper Co. v.

Tilge v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 149 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1911

by the board was invalid for want of jurisdiction. … The rule as stated by Brown upon Jurisdiction, sections 17 and 18, is as follows: Sec. 17. * * * But there are some matters that are jurisdictional which may be waived. * * * and the rule may be laid down that if a party

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 28 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1938

Yes; there is Bismarck brown and Metmil yellow. Q. About what percent is there of that coloring matter? — A. Approximately, five to six ounces of each to a ton. Q. … board; that it is sold as “liner”; that it is not sold under the name “vat-lined board”; and that it is used in the manufacture of “so-called fibre board.”

United States v. American Railway Express Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 211 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1921

D. 31577); United States v. Brown (2 id., 57; T. D. 31596); United States v. Geisenheimer & Co. (6 id., 520; T. D. 36144); United States v. Bene (6 id., 523; T. D. 36145); United States v. Murphy & Co. (9 id., 248; T. … The decision of the board to that effect is accordingly affirmed.

United States v. Admiral Oriental Line

18 C.C.P.A. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1930

In Thorn v. Browne, 267 Fed. 519, 523 (certiorari denied, 250 U. … In Gagon v. United States, 193 U.

Borglin v. Palmer

70 F.2d 899 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1934

Foster v. Antisdel, 14 App.D.C. 552 ; Prindle v. Brown, 24 App.D.C. 114 ; Luellen v. Claussen, 43 App.D.C. 444 ; Beidler v; Capps, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 703, 36 F. (2d) 122; Cooper v. Hubbell, 19 C.C.P.A. … Foster v. Antisdel, supra. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Rockhill & Vietor

10 Ct. Cust. 112 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1920

In the case of Strohmeyer v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 285 -287; T. … —McKesson v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 213 -216).

In re Lavinthal

47 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the primary examiner rejecting claims Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, in appellant’s application … Brown et al. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 31 ; Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Carey, 147 U. S. 623 ; In re Braselton, 51 App. D. C. 31, 273 Fed. 759 . We concur in the view's expressed by the Board of Appeals and its decision is affirmed.

Shumaker v. Paulson

136 F.2d 686 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

Krebs et al. v. Melicharek, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1362, 97 F. (2d) 477. Brown, Jr. v. Barton, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 889, 102 F. (2d) 193. Crane et al. v. Carlson, 29 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 879, 125 F. (2d) 709. . … In the case of Brown, Jr. v.

Severson v. Olson

64 F.2d 694 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1933

See Brown v. Campbell, 41 App. D. C. 499, C. D. 1914, page 170; Wright v. Lorenz, C. D. 1902, page 370; Dreckschmidt v. Schaefer and Holmes, 46 App. D. C. 295, C. D. 1918, page 120, and Boyd v. Cherry (C. … The Board of Appeals, relying on Howard v. Bowes, 31 App. D.

John D. Rieser v. William A. Williams

255 F.2d 419 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1958

The decision in Andrews v. … A situation closely paralleling the instant one was presented in Brown v. Barton, 102 F.2d 193 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 889.

Townsend v. Smith

36 F.2d 292 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

Hien v. Buhoup, 11 App. D. C. 293; Kennicott v. Caps, 49 App. D. C. 187, 262 F. 641 ; Greenawalt v. Dwight (App. D. C.) 258 F. 982 . … Lindmark v. De Ferranti, 34 App. D. C. 445; Browne v. Dyson, 39 App. D. C. 415. Appellant, Townsend, filed his application for a patent in the Patent Office on January 13, 1922.

United States v. Wakem & McLaughlin

2 Ct. Cust. 411 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

D. 26988); Hempstead v. United States (122 Fed. Rep., 752); United States v. Hesse (141 Fed. Rep., 492). … McMullen v. United States (123 Fed. Rep., 847).

In re Stinson

154 F.2d 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1946

Its color is white or any “pale shades of yellow, green, blue, brown, or red.” Discoloration in the mineral by reason of impurities is lessened and the product rendered white by the process. … Ebers patent, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Stursberg v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1912

The Board of General Appraisers classified the article as wrapping paper, rather than a manufacture of greaseproof paper. … The article was invoiced as “brown parchment cloth.”

In re Walling

228 F.2d 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1955

The patent to Sell discloses a food product comprising peanut butter to which has been added brown sugar, syrup, sorghum, honey or glucose in syrup form. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Jackson, Judge, retired, recalled to participate.

Application of Ralph C. Walling

228 F.2d 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1955

The patent to Sell discloses a food product comprising peanut butter to which has been added brown sugar, syrup, sorghum, honey or glucose in syrup form. … The decision of the Board of Appeals ■is affirmed. Affirmed. JACKSON, Judge, retired, recalled to ■participate.

In re Keller

83 F.2d 910 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1936

The Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the examiner, and the appellant has appealed: Claims 54 and 60 are typical, and are as follows: 54. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Ciba Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 309 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1926

Ullman v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 61 , T. D. 31032; United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 249 , T. D. 31975; Van Ingen & Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 320 , T. … D. 33520; Colonial Import & Export Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 137, T. D. 34190; United States v. Lawrence, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 203 , T. D. 38967; Downing & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust.