Case law

United States v. Reed

3 Ct. Cust. 504 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

Hartranft v. Wiegmann ( 121 U. S., 609 ), which is cited by the board . as authority for overruling the collector, is not determinative of the *506 point involved in this controversy. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

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.

Thomsen v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 37 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1911

This principle was involved in two cases which were recently decided by this court, namely, Brody et al. v. United States (2 Ct. Custs. Appls., 15; T. D. 31573) and Krauss & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Custs. … The decision of the board is therefore 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.

United States v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works

9 Ct. Cust. 252 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

See Parodi v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 395 ; T. D. 37644); Strohmeyer v. United States ( 178 Fed., 268 ); Vandegrift v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 176 ; T. D. 32462 *256 United States v. … D. 33532); United States v. Younglove Grocery Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 377 ; T. D. 34873) The decision of the board is reversed.

Application of Moore

181 F.2d 1014 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1950

Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 316 U.S. 364 , 62 S.Ct. 1179 , 86 L.Ed. 1537 ; Loom Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

Heuberger v. Becker

107 F.2d 601 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1939

This was the only point decided by tlie board. … The Examiner of Interferences, in raising the question of appellant’s right to make claims corresponding to the counts, relied upon a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in the case of Smith v. Foley v. Anderson v.

In re Lang

97 F.2d 626 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

It is thought that the Brogdex decision —American Fruit Growers v. Brogdex, 404 O. G. 1043—is in point. The sealing of the liquid in a container is purely an aggregative step. Wilson Packing Co. v. … 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.■

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. Jones Engineering Co.

292 F.2d 294 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 7, 1961

As observed in Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. … See Pocahontas Operators Association v. Carter Coal Co., 160 F.2d 114 , 34 CCPA 926, 927, and Revere Paint Co. v. 20th Century Chemical Co., 150 F.2d 135 , 32 CCPA 1096.

Vance W. Tolle and Paul E. Ludy v. William A. Starkey

255 F.2d 935 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1958

Reed v. Edwards, 101 F.2d 550 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 901; Kohl v. Wilms, 175 F.2d 466 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1099. … Iron Works v.

Bing & Co.'s Successors v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 211 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

United States v. Meadows ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 143 ; T.D. 31665); Vandiver v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 505 ; T. D. 32246); Seeberger v. Hardy ( 150 U. S., 420 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Byrne

3 Ct. Cust. 52 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1912

Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, involving the right of an importer to appeal upon a protest claiming a higher rate of duty than that … The issue is identical with that presented by the case of United States v. Schwartz & Co., decided concurrently herewith. The decision of the board is affirmed, for the reasons set out in that decision.

Application of Ostermann

179 F.2d 1010 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

Claims 15 and 18 for the cartridge were allowed by the Board of Appeals. … See also Loom Company v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580, 591 , 26 L.Ed. 1177 ; application of Kinney et al., 168 F.2d 756 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1253.

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.

Balfour v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1922

In the former decision we referred to the case of United States v. … Accordingly, the decision .of the board overruling the protest is affirmed.

In re Lockert

65 F.2d 159 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1933

Co. et al. v. Standard Computing Scale Co., 204 Fed. 617 , is cited by counsel for appellant as authority for his contentions. … Co. et al. v.

Application of Prutton

200 F.2d 706 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1952

“Attention is directed to Engel-brecht v. … In the case of Schering Corp. v.

In re Gaubert

524 F.2d 1222 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1975

Second, the board questioned the nature of the commutator structure. … Claims 3 and 4, submitted after the board’s decision, were filed too late and were not considered by the board. Accordingly, claims 3 and 4 cannot be reviewed or considered by this court.

In re Both

46 F.2d 362 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1931

We agree with the Board of Appeals that claims 20, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 35 were properly rejected on the references cited. We are unable, however, to agree with the board as to claim 34. … Lektophone Corp. v. The Rola Co., - U. S. -, decided December 8, 1930. Certainly, no one else, so far as the references disclose, has suggested this idea.