Case law

Fife v. Bright

146 F.2d 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 11, 1944

Bright took no appeal from the board’s decision. … It is unquestioned that if the Fife 1836 application be given the status of a disclosure as originally filed Fife has a constructive reduction to practice long before the filing date of Gray [Field, v. Oolman, 193 O.

Forbriger v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 574 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

Nor do we think that his decision or the expressions of opinion therein are relevant to the issues before the board. United States v. American Metal Co. (Ltd.), 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 440 , T. D. 40612. … It is contended by the appellants that the only finding made by the board in its decision was that the appellants were careless. We do not so interpret the board’s decision.

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.

Tong v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

D. 26448; Cousinery v. Schell, 34 Fed. 272 ; Craig v. Maxwell, 6 Fed. Cas. 728 . *137 The collector is required by law to liquidate the entries on the basis of the proclaimed currency rate except as otherwise provided. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Benjamin J. Chromy and Philip H. Allen

318 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1963

Fox Typewriter Co. v. Corona Typewriter Co., 6 Cir., 282 F. 502 ; In re Bostwick, 102 F.2d 886 , 26 CCPA, Patents, 1117; Schenk [et al.] v. United Aircraft Corp., D.C., 43 F.Supp. 679 ; and Mercoid Corp. v. … We agree with the board’s conclusion.

Application of Josserand

188 F.2d 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1951

Co. v. … In the case of Union Carbide Co. v.

Ackerman v. Light

96 F.2d 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1938

We are in agreement with this statement of the board, which is in accordance with the rule approved by us. Daley v. Trube, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 964, 88 F. (2d) 308; Bechtold v. Lanser, 23 C. C. P. A. … Norling v. Hayes, 37 App. D. C. 169; Earles et al. v. Gomber, 50 App. D. C. 389.

In re Johnson

47 F.2d 389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1931

The board of appeals, by a majority decision, affirmed the action of the primary examiner in rejecting the claims. One member of the board of appeals dissented from the decision of the majority. … Neither the combination of old elements or device accomplishing no more than an aggregate of old results (Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353 ; Office Specialty Co. v. Fenton, 174 U. S. 492 , 87 O. G. 118 ; Grinnell v.

United States v. Leigh

4 Ct. Cust. 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

The following is a copy of the definitions of the verb “to make up” given by the Standard 'Dictionary: Make, v. * * * To make up: 1. … According to the views above expressed the decision of the board should be affirmed.

In re Buehler

515 F.2d 1134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1975

See also Harpman v. … [Emphasis in original.] *1141 After making the factual inquiries specified in Graham v.

In re Michlin

256 F.2d 317 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1958

Co. v. Kaltenbaeh et al., 95 F. 2d 201 (C. C. A. 4th Circuit), 37 USPQ 288 . … We agree with the examiner and the board that Ferrant fairly discloses each of the above means, as recited in claim 97.

Delapenha v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 113 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

We think the conclusions of fact by the board are fully supported by the testimony and by an examination of the imported commodity represented by the sample produced in court. … The case of Schall v. United States (T. D. 26007; 147 Fed. Rep., 760; 154 Fed. Rep., 1005) is, we think, entirely in point.

Wadsworth v. Blank

92 F.2d 981 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 23, 1937

earliest date claimed by appellee, and that since the device was of such simple character, the construction •of the same constituted a reduction to practice, held no actual tests to be necessary, and cited the case of Sachs v. … We think the board properly affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences in awarding priority of invention expressed in the count at bar to the party Blank and its decision is affirmed.

United States v. McCoy

5 Ct. Cust. 264 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1914

Brune v. Marriott ( 4 Fed. Cas., 475 , No. 2052), affirmed in Marriott v. Brune ( 9 How., 619 ). In section 14 of the act of 1864 (13 Stat. … State v. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co. ( 32 Fed., 722 ); Ellis v. Whitlock ( 10 Mo., 781 ); Jocelyn v. Barrett ( 18 Ind., 128 ). We think the board reached the correct conclusion, and the decision is affirmed.

United States v. Thomsen & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 223 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

See United States v. Dieckerhoff ( 160 Fed., 449 ; T. D. 28716). … The decision of the board is affirmed.

In re O'Connor

161 F.2d 221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1947

Jackson, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court; This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting all of the claims 1 … Potts v. Greager, 155 U. S. 597 , cited with approval in In re Kylstra, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 938, 87 F. (2d) 487, 32 USPQ 382 .

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.

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.

In Re Ayres

83 F.2d 297 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1936

In the case of Ufer et al. v. Williams, 79 F.(2d) 892, 896 , 23 C.C.P.A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Warren R. Attwood

343 F.2d 493 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1965

The boundaries of the grooves coincide so that in effect there are also V-shaped circular teeth or ridges. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.