Case law

In re Schoenrock

59 F.2d 235 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1932

Hotchkiss et al. v. Greenwood et al, 11 How. 248, 265 ; Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64, 76 ; Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 608 ; In re De Van Horning, 54 App. D. C. 271, 296 Fed. 1018 ; In re Stevens, 17 C. C. … Lug Co. v. Brownell, 123 Fed. 86 ; In re Orcutt, 32 App. D. C. 345. The decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office is affirmed.

In the Matter of the Application of Thomas A. Krivanek and Roy T. Krivanek

225 F.2d 483 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 21, 1955

It is respectfully submitted that there is no more patentable cooperation between the magnet and the snare loop portions of the present device than existed between the combined pencil and eraser of Reckendorfer v. … In their brief and oral arguments before us, appellants earnestly renew the contentions advanced below, and specifically challenge the applicability of Reckendorfer v.

In re Heritage

182 F.2d 639 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

In that connection the examiner cited the case of Therm-O-Proof Insulation Co. v. Slayter & Co., 80 F. (2d) 557 (C. C. A. 7th 1935). … The Hamilton Laboratories, Inc. v. Massengill, 111 F. (2d) 584 (C. C. A. 6th 1940), 45 USPQ 594 , certiorari denied 311 U. S. 688 , 47 USPQ 531 .

In re Jannell

120 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1941

It will be seen that the board said that it did not regard the expression “apparatus as a whole” as “necessarily including any more than is included in the claims.” … limitation expressed in the preamble need not be considered even though the application disclosure would support a patentable claim if it had been made, and cites a number of cases including the famous “wax nose” case —White v.

In re Herchenrider

117 F.2d 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1941

Co. v. Halifax Cotton Mills, Inc., 257 Fed. 321 . … Accordingly we hold, for the reasons hereinbefore stated, that all of the claims before us are patentable over the references cited, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

Hopkins v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 29 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

The two protests were thereupon forwarded to the Board of General Appraisers and heard together. … As to the protest first filed, the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed on the authority of Waddell v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 424 , T.

Microutsicos v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

This protest was heard upon evidence by the Board of General Appraisers, and was overruled. … In the case of Acker v. United States (T.

Brinker v. Kray

460 F.2d 1073 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1972

Appellees not only agree with the board but also contend that there are other deficiencies which the board merely referred to as being “noted by Kray in the brief.” … Even applying the rule of reason enunciated in Berry v.

Frank P. Bennett v. John Halahan, Theodore F. Aronson and Floyd A. Lyon

285 F.2d 807 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1961

The board was of the opinion that, since such mechanism is not recited in the count, its operativeness is immaterial. … Trumbull et al. v. Kirschbraun, 67 F.2d 974 , 21 CCPA 758; Creed et al. v. Potts, 96 F.2d 317 , 25 CCPA 1084.

Masson v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 149 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1911

United States v. Lawrence (137 Fed. Rep., 466). What would be the effect of the presentation of a pro forma or corrected invoice it is unnecessary to decide. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Arthur P. Shepard

319 F.2d 194 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

The Bullard Co. et al. v. Coe, 1945 C.D. 13, 573 O.G. 547 [ 79 U.S.App.D.C. 369 ], 147 F.(2d) 568 , 64 USPQ 359 .” We are of the opinion that the board was correct in finding that the affidavit is inconclusive. … For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No..576,517 filed April 6,1956, for “Spraywelding Materials.’

United States v. Butler Bros.

3 Ct. Cust. 390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1912

The board held them dutiable, as claimed by the importers, at 35 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 215, as manufactures of wood, on the authority of Woolworth v. United States (152 Fed. Rep., 483). … S., 70, 75 ); and Swan v. Arthur ( 103 U. S., 597 ). The decision of the board is reversed and the assessment of the collector affirmed.

Worsdell & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 270 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 16, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed to this court. In the determination of. this' case the following questions are involved: First. … Tilge v.

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.

Wolf v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 589 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1926

Appls. 307 , was affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Fish, 268 U. S. 607 . Some of the more recent cases are Lee v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 269 , T. D. 41205; Linen Thread Co. v. … D. 41220; Glendenning, McLeish & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 387 , T. D. 41320; Syndicate Trading Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust Appls. 409, T. D. 41339; United States v. Bracher, 13 Ct. Cust.

Jones v. Robinson

58 F.2d 840 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1932

See opinion in Stewart v. Robinson, supra. … This was gone into thoroughly in Stewart v. Robinson, supra, and it will not be necessary to repeat here what we said there.

United States v. Todd & Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 50 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1921

S., 468 ); Toplitz v. Hedden ( 146 U. S., 252 ); Sonn v. Magone ( 159 U. S., 417 ); United States v. Buffalo Gas Fuel Co. ( 172 U. S., 339 ); United States v. Nordlinger ( 121 Fed., 690 ). … S., 607 ); United States v. Healey ( 160 U. S., 136 ); United States v. Falk ( 204 U. S., 143 ); Komada v. United States ( 215 U. S., 392 ). The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Victor A. J. Van Lint and Park H. Miller, Jr

354 F.2d 674 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1966

Claim 10, accepted as illustrative by both the appellants and the board, reads: 10. … In support of that contention, he refers to In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488 , 50 CCPA 1004, and cases listed in Appendix “A” to Kropa v. Robie et al., 187 F.2d 150 , 38 CCPA 858.

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..

Bramley v. Beese

132 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1942

In this case, we are in much the same position as we were in Brand v. Thomas, 96 F.2d 301, 303 , 25 C. … The decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed. Affirmed.