Case law

John J. Byrne and Robert W. Cruger v. William E. Trifillis

442 F.2d 1390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1971

THE BOARD’S DECISION The board first found that the question whether appellants’ application supported the recitation of a reel having “two integrally formed aligned winding drums” (emphasis ours) in count 1 was properly … Compare Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533 , 50 CCPA 1051 (1963); Brand v. Thomas, 96 F.2d 301 , 25 CCPA 1053 (1938). Therefore, the decision awarding priority as to count 1 to Trifillis is affirmed.

Mittelstaedt (Inc.) v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 475 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 17, 1923

Barbee, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case was heard with Mittelstaedt (Inc.) v. United States, No. 2200, decided concurrently herewith (T. D. 39537). … In the case at bar the Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest.

Abeel v. Hezler

476 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 19, 1973

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of invention as to counts 1 and 2 in interference No. 96,469, to Hezler et al. (Hezler). … See Janeway v. Nystrom, 77 USPQ 229 (Com’r.Pats.1946). . The pertinent language of count 2 is not precisely, the same as that the board quoted from count 1 but is very similar. .

Nelson v. Lenning

96 F.2d 508 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 2, 1938

of Mason v. … This whole question was discussed at length in Severson v. Olson, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 946, 64 F. (2d) 694; Miller v. Hayman, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 848, 46 F. (2d) 188; and numerous other decisions of this court.

Bourdon v. Kraft

113 F.2d 115 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 8, 1940

BOURDON v. KRAFT 3. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

Winkelmann v. Calvert

154 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1946

Appellant in his reasons of appeal alleges that the Board of Interference Examiners erred in holding that the decision in Calvert v. … The decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is accordingly affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Frederiksen

213 F.2d 547 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1954

Standard Brands, Inc., v. National Grain Yeast Corp., 308 U.S. 34 [ 60 S.Ct. 27 , 84 L.Ed. 17 ]; Allen v. Coe, 77 [U.S.] App.D.C. 324, 135 F.2d 11 ; Hall Lab[oratories] v. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. JACKSON, Judge (retired), sat for GARRETT, Chief Judge.

Application of Maurice May

312 F.2d 478 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

We find no reversible error in the board’s analysis. … In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Glickman v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 151 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1921

In this respect we are not able to distinguish between the facts here and in the case of Louise v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls., 41 ; T. … The record shows that only one member of the board that decided this case heard the witnesses. The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In Re Farrand

49 F.2d 1035 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

Hailes v. Van Wormer, 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 353, 368 , 22 L. Ed. 241 ; Thatcher Heating Co. et al. v. Burtis et al., 121 U. S. 286 , 7 S. Ct. 1034 , 30 L. Ed. 942 ; In re Isherwood, 40 F.(2d) 987 , 17 C. C. P. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Lewis

129 F.2d 560 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347 ; Grimmell Washing Machine Co. v. Johnson Co., 247 U. S. 426 ; Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353 ; In re Hueber & Horton, 21 C. C. P. A. … (Patents) 1423, 104 F. (2d) 824; Sachs et al. v. Hartford Electric Supply Co., 47 F. (2d) 743.

United States v. Halle Bros.

6 Ct. Cust. 543 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1916

This case was heard with United States v. Downing ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 545 ; T. D. 36197), in which opinion is handed down concurrently herewith. … The judgment' of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Truslow

104 F.2d 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1939

(Patents) 861, 87 F. (2d) 499; Patramountt Publix Corporation v. American Tri-Ergon Corporation, 294 U. S. 464 . … We are of opinion that the appealed claims were properly held unpatentable over the cited reference and accordingly the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Green

97 F.2d 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

*1148 It is obvious from a study of the references and the appealed claims that appellant’s device is new, and it may be conceded’ that it is useful, nevertheless, as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Thompson v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Grettie

104 F.2d 359 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1939

A somewhat similar case is Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Jack H. Hofstetter

362 F.2d 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1966

The Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejection based on the combined teachings of the prior art. … See Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. 372 , 102 F.2d 236 , (1938). In Magnaflux Corp. v.

Application of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company

335 F.2d 836 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 27, 1964

The board said the same thing in substance. … The Patent Office, in saying ‘configuration of goods” means only configuration of a part or feature, relies on the opinion of the District Court for the District of Columbia in Alan Wood Steel Co. v.

In re Gould

673 F.2d 1385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1982

Gould v. Hellwarth, 472 F.2d 1383 , 176 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1973); Gould v. Schawlow, 53 CCPA 1403, 363 F.2d 908 , 150 USPQ 634 (1966). … Accordingly, this case is hereby remanded to the PTO Board of Appeals for such further action as may be appropriate. REMANDED.

Anderson v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 108 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

The same article was before the court in Hunter v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 32 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Eli Simon, Frank W. Thomas and Welton R. Burney, Jr

302 F.2d 737 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1962

We held, citing Den Beste v. … We do not find that the board took any such position.