Case law

The Procter & Gamble Company v. A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co.

342 F.2d 476 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1965

We do, however, find understanding in the decision of the Court of Appeals for the *478 Second Circuit in Polaroid Corp. v. … While difference in goods alone is not controlling, Hollywood Water Heater Co. v.

Peterson v. Schatzel

129 F.2d 556 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

Brogden v. Henry B. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988; In re Alexander M. Nicolson, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1468, 49 F. (2d) 961; Kenyon v. Crane, 28 C. C. P. A. … Por the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals 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.

In re Daniel

34 F.2d 995 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

Co. v. Novelty Incandescent Lamp Co. (C. C. A.) 167 Fed. 977 , 93 C. C. A. 387 ; Gray Telephone *611 Fay Station Co. v. Baird, Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 174 Fed 417, 98 C. C. A. 353 ; Beckwith v. Malleable Iron Range Co. (C. … In the case of Hale v. Kilburn Mfg. Co. v. Lehigh Valley Traction Co., 126 Fed.

In re Listen

136 F.2d 719 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1943

We are of opinion, therefore, that the case of Lawther v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Raiche v. Foley

113 F.2d 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 8, 1940

See Raiche v. Foley, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1235, 103 F. (2d) 920. … Wallerich of the V.

International Forwarding Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 455 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

The protest was heard upon evidence before the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled. … Following the decision in that case and the views aboAre expressed the decision of the board is affirmed.

In re Sommer

56 F.2d 893 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1932

directly readable on the disclosure of each applicant who is now a party in said interference and holds that appellants’ rights to the subject matter of the appealed claim is res adjudícala under the decision of Blackford v. … The decision of the 'Board of Appeals 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.

Librascope, Incorporated (Now by Merger Librascope Division General Precision, Inc.) v. Libraphone, Inc.

314 F.2d 580 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 10, 1963

Hardtmuth, Inc. v. Fabrique Suisse De Crayons Caran D’Ache S.A., supra. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is reversed. … Finn v. Cooper’s Incorporated, 292 F.2d 555 , 48 CCPA 1132. I would therefore affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 1 . Ser. No. 35,661, filed Aug. 16, 1957. 2 .

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. .

United States v. Frank & Lambert

2 Ct. Cust. 239 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 16, 1911

United States v. Muller, Maclean & Co. (152 Fed. … It is true that the opinion of the Board of General Appraisers, adopted by the Circuit Court in United States v. Commercial Cable Co. (141 Fed.

In re Lowry

93 F.2d 909 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

Rowntree *835 v. Sloan, 45 App. D. C. 207; Chapman v. Beede, 54 App. D. C. 209; Chapman et al. v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 . … However, for the reasons stated by the Board of Appeals, we think claim 33 was properly rejected on the patent to Mandell in view of the subject matter of the claims in the Hallock patent. De Ferranti v.

Steer Inn Systems, Inc. v. Laughner's Drive-In, Inc.

405 F.2d 1401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1969

Amend Co. v. American Character Doll Co., 223 F.2d 277 , 42 CCPA 983, 187 (1955). Both parties are operating drive-in restaurants wherein hamburgers, cheeseburgers, beverages, and the like are featured. … The board’s decision is affirmed. Affirmed. KIRKPATRICK, J., took no part in the decision of this case. 1 . Reported at 151 USPQ 650 . 2 . Serial No. 133,422, filed December 5, 1961. 3 .

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.

United States v. Ocean Brokerage Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 38 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1921

Tbe protest was submitted to tbe Board of General Appraisers and was sustained. Tbe Government appeals from that decision. … The decision of the board is accordingly reversed,.

Application of Gordon Henry Cook and Peter Arnold Merigold

439 F.2d 730 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1971

The board affirmed both rejections. … Co. v.

United States v. Emery

18 C.C.P.A. 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 10, 1930

D. 35179, which involved boards designed for use as inside ceiling; Carr v. United States,C 11 t. Cust. Appls. 35, T. … The ceiling boards were not ceilings, the flooring boards were not floors, and the cello material was not the backs, tops or sides for cellos.

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.

In re Tenney

117 F.2d 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1941

Tenney v. Nordmeyer et al., 25 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the board is affirmed.