Case law

Application of Paul Hollis Taylor

288 F.2d 950 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1961

We have been referred by appellant to Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 , 22 S.Ct. 698 , 46 L.Ed. 968 , but find that case not in point. … As we find ample ground to sustain the decision of the Board of Appeals, it is affirmed. Affirmed.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 329 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

In the case of Myers v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. … In the case of Sheldon v. United States (T.

Wilson v. Sherts

81 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1936

De Kando v. Armstrong, 37 App.D.C. 314 -321.” The case of Bell v. … Appellants also cite a decision of the Board of Appeals in an interference proceeding entitled Hall v. O’Connor, Interference No. 51,743, which decision appears in the record herein.

Application of Alexander M. Wright

268 F.2d 757 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 10, 1959

Colgate-Palmolive Company v. … Corporation v.

Robie v. Netherly

172 F.2d 557 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1949

Robie v. Carlton, Patent Appeal No. 5494, decided December 7, 1948, 36 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 739, 171 F. (2d) 310, 80 USPQ 102 ; Finch v. Dillenback, Jr., 28 C. C. P. A. … Q. 468; Sweetland v. Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 53 F. (2d) 709, 11 U. S. Pat. Q. 174, Steenstrup v. Morton, 58 App. D. C. 343, 30 F. (2d) 867.

Koeller-Struss Co. v. United States

46 C.C.P.A. 83 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1959

The Customs Court said that the petitioner-appellant’s contentions had been fully answered in Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. … As suggested in the Brown & Go. case, any other construction would lead to interminable confusion.

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.

Richard v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 306 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1912

As we view it, the case of Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States (115 Fed. Rep., 232), if it be assumed as controlling if found to be in point, is not opposed to the conclusion we reach. … The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.■

Gertzen v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 499 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is, therefore, reversed.

Faultless Starch Co. v. Sales Producers Associates, Inc.

530 F.2d 1400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1976

Accordingly, the decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED. . Reg. … Hunt was not argued herein before the board. See Curtice-Burns, Inc. v. Northwest Sanitation Products, Inc., 530 F.2d 1396 , 189 USPQ 138 (CCPA 1976).

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.

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.

Western Blind & Screen Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 68 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1919

In United States v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

New England Fish Co. v. Hervin Co.

511 F.2d 562 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1975

Food Specialty Co. v. Kal Kan Foods, Inc., supra. … Accordingly, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

In re Macfarren

121 F.2d 468 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1941

The board agreed with the examiner and had the following to say: . … Field v. *1262 Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1502, 49 F. (2d) 1072; Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 867, 54 F. (2d) 821.

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 484 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1923

(Ferry & Co. v. United States, supra, 554, 557 .) … In Mills & Gibb v.

Application of Henry J. Rynkiewicz and Gilbert B. Ayres

390 F.2d 742 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1968

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner in finally rejecting claims 1-12 of appellant’s application 1 entitled “Method of Opening Suture Packages.” No claims were allowed. … However, commercial success, after all, is but one evidentiary consideration which, as pointed out in Graham v.

In Re Arthur J. Griner

287 F.2d 178 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1961

We think the board correctly held that claims 3, 5,15, and 16 define nothing more than the application of the Denison process to blocks of biscuits stacked on edge, and the board’s decision as to those claims is affirmed. … The board held that the V-shaped fold is an obvious method of folding commonly employed in closing the ends of grocery bags.

In re Crowell

39 F.2d 681 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

Permutit Co. v. Harvey Laundry Co., 279 Fed. 713 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is 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.