Case law

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.

In re Smolak

88 F.2d 838 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1937

In the case of Mineral Separation North American Corporation v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. State Forwarding & Shipping Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 153 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

In Tilge v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. … In Koken Barbers’ Supply Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust.

Payne v. Hurley

71 F.2d 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

Wilcox v. Danner, 53 F. (2d) 711,19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 802; Buchanan v. Lademann, 54 E.(2d) 425, 19 G. C. P. A. (Patents) 836; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 86; Couch v. Barnett, 23 App. D. C. 446; Sehartow v. … In Fageol v. Lyon, 53 App. D.

Jackson v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 512 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1916

Following the case of Dingelstedt v. … This concession accords with the ruling of this court in United States v. Foscato, supra. The decision of the board sustaining the assessment is affirmed.-

In Re Williams

36 F.2d 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1929

The Board of Appeals affirmed this decision, and the applicant has appealed. The disputed elaims are as follows: “11. … Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co. (D. C.) 10 F.(2d) 536 ; Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Pittsburgh Transformer Co. (D. C.) 10 F.(2d) 593 ; Linde Air Products Co. v. Morse Dry Dock Co. (D. C.) 239 F. 909 -917.

In re Cook

134 F.2d 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1943

C. 95; Langan v. Warren Axe & Tool Co., 184 Fed. 720 ; In re Buckwalter, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1031, 75 F. (2d) 515; In re Reed and Lamie, 22, C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1182, 76 F. (2d) 907; In re Weber, 24 C. C. P. A. … The board’s decision is therefore affirmed.

Henry Bluestone v. Louis Schmerling

265 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1959

As indicated in Smith v. … Appellant by his arguments and by his reliance on Smith v.

Application of Roy A. Grout

377 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

. § 103 was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. … Evidence of commercial success is a “secondary consideration” which may have “relevancy” as an indicia of obviousness or unobviousness, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966).

Application of Paul Diedrich

318 F.2d 946 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

The board affirmed, agreeing that appellant’s parent application had failed to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 . … Hardtmuth, Inc. v. Fabrique Suisse De Crayons Caran D’Ache S.A., 287 F.2d 599 , 48 C.C.P.A. 873 .” For the same reasons we do not consider the rejection of the process claims here. 5 .

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.

In re Magerlein

602 F.2d 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 5, 1979

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 27-41. We reverse. … In re Widmer, supra; Commissioner v.

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.

Frank v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

Rep., 3) and United States v. Simon (169 Fed. Rep., 106). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers 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 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 Nolan

553 F.2d 1261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1977

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection under 35 USC 103 of claims 1 through 9, all of the claims in application serial No. 396,337, filed September … (e) _ , 0) (V) where M.M.M. is the % mean memory margin, e is the luminous efficiency, 1 is the peak current, and V is the minimum sustaining voltage. .

Application of Carl F. Swinehart and Marko Sfiligoj

439 F.2d 210 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1971

The board reversed the rejection of two other claims. … General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364 , 58 S.Ct. 899 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1402 (1938).

In re Neuberth

82 F.2d 718 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1936

Before the Board of Appeals the applicant cited the following cases which he also cites and relies upon in this court: Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 22 F. (2d) 259, and Driver-Harris Co. v. … We agree with the decision of the board that the examiner properly rejected all the claims of appellant’s application for the reasons stated! by him and by the board. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re Gauerke

86 F.2d 330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

Prior to consideration of the matter by the Board of Appeals, appellant filed, under rule 76 of the Patent Office, an affidavit by one James K. … Weis v. Woodman, 65 F.(2d) 274 , 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1211; In re Lang, 82 F.(2d) 399 , 23 C.C. P.A. (Patents) 994. For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.