Case law

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.

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.

Application of Lurelle Guild

204 F.2d 700 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1953

We agree thoroughly with the examiner and Board of Appeals in rejecting this contention by applicant. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer

104 F.2d 791 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

In the case of Marine v. Wright, 22 C. C. P. A. … Marshall and Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495, and cases therein cited. For the foregoing reasons the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed,.

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.

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.

Kear v. Roder

115 F.2d 810 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1940

In the case of George v. … In the case of Petrie v.

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.

Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Herthel

102 F.2d 965 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1939

The testimony covering both cases was consolidated in a single record along with that in a third case (Gray v. Jenkins, Suit- No. 3997, decided by us January 23,1939, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 804, 101 F. (2d) 196). … Extensive argument is presented before us relative to the board's bolding.

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.

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.

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.

Chase v. Gartner

374 F.2d 914 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1967

The board reasoned that, under the doctrine of Field v. … This latter statement seems to us to clarify the board’s fundamental position on the question of operativeness as well as on support.

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.

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.

United States v. Masson

5 Ct. Cust. 77 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

of this court in United Cigar Stores Co. et al. v. … Obviously the decision of this court in United Cigar Stores Co. et al. v. United States, supra, was inaccurately interpreted.

United States v. Chas. J. Webb Sons Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 156 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1928

In United States v. Isler & Guye, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 485 , T. … See Riley v. Blacker, 51 Mont. 364 ; 152 P.758; State v. Brooks-Scanton Lumber Co., 122 Minn. 400 ; 142 N. W. 717 ; Mathieson v. Graven, 247 Fed. 223 .

Universal Shipping Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

So as to the word “plate ” in the case of Newman-Andrew Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 4 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed, and reliquidation directed under paragraph 199. ,

Republic Steel Corporation v. M.P.H. Manufacturing Corporation, Inc.

312 F.2d 940 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

Appellant cites Bordo Products Co. v. B. A. Railton Co., 173 F.2d 981 , 36 CCPA 1059, and Wincharger Corp. v. Rinco, Inc., 297 F.2d 261 , 49 CCPA 849. … We therefore affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Affirmed.