Case law

Warren v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 461 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

The importers did attempt to prove by the Government examiner, an admitted expert in art, that the importation was of an artistic merit equal to that of the vase involved in the case of United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. American Express Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

Bland, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: These are cross-appeals from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers. … However, in the case of United States v. Berger and Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 362 , T.

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.

Finch v. Van der Veer Dillenbach

121 F.2d 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1941

Winslow v. Austin, 14 App. D. C. 137; Kempshall v. Royce, 29 App. D. C. 181, 187; Hewlett v. Steinberger, 40 App. D. C. 287, 293. … Alden v. Dewey, 1 Fed. Cas. 329 ; Rolfe v. Kaisling, 32 App. D. C. 582, 589. See also Davis v. Carrier, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 844, 81 F. (2d) 250, and King v. Burner, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1312, 90 F. (2d) 343.

Stern v. Schroeder

36 F.2d 515 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal, in an interference proceeding, from a decision •of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the examiner of interferences awarding priority of … Jobski v. Johnson, 47 App. D. C. 230, and cases cited therein; Blaine v. White, 50 App. D. C. 38, 267 Fed. 34 . See also, Ruth v. Groch, 51 App. D. C. 226, 277 Fed. 861 ; and Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D.

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.

Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. J. H. Bonck Company, Inc.

390 F.2d 754 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1968

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained opposer’s position, both initially and on reconsideration. We agree. … Vitamin Corporation of America v. American Home Products Corporation, [ 166 F.2d 203 ,] 35 CCPA 952, * * *; and Crystal Corporation, formerly the Crystal Chemical Company, Incorporated v.

Application of Jacques Sejournet

285 F.2d 823 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1961

In support of this position, appellant cites: Folberth Auto Specialty Co. v. Mayo-Skinner Mfg. Co., D.C.N.D.I11. 1923, 292 F. 883, 890 ; Kelley et al. v. … For the foregoing reasons, the decision, of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Bud Berman Sportswear, Inc. v. United States

469 F.2d 1107 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1972

Corbett & Co. v. United States, 20 CCPA 178, 180, T.D. 45965; United States v. Malhame & Co., 19 CCPA 164, 170, T.D. 45276; United States v. Victor & Achielis, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 122, 124 , T.D. 42767; United States v. … Paredes & Co. v. United States, 63 Cust.

Knauth v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 183 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1912

It was undoubtedly prompted by the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hamilton v. United States (T. D. 29519). … See Hamilton v. United States, supra.

Ball v. Hodgson

129 F.2d 343 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1942

With regard to count 5, the board, .in a supplemental decision, affirmed the decision of the examiner. … Wilson et al. v. Sherts et al., 23 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 914, 924, 81 F. (2d) 155; Hull v. Davenport, 24 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1194, 90 F. (2d) 103. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Rhodes v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 100 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1911

The case is therefore not distinguishable from United States v. United Cigar Stores Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 450 ; T. … The case falls within United States v. United Cigar Stores Co., supra. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Jardine v. Long

58 F.2d 836 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1932

The circumstance, particularly as a matter of first impression, does tend somewhat to prejudice Long’s case, and in eases such as Halbleib et al. v. Bendix et al., 50 App. D. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Hammond

37 F.2d 760 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

Masteras v. Hildreth, 264 Fed. Rep. 571, 576. In In re Gardner, 32 Appls. D. … C. 447; Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68 . We agree with the finding of the Board of Ajppeals that Dallier discloses everything which the claims here in controversy call for.

In re Murray

77 F.2d 648 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1935

About these heating elements is positioned a box-like structure made of sheet metal, the sides of which are corrugated, the corrugations of the two sides cooperating to-form a series of V-shaped vertical flues through which … For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Davis v. Burrows

492 F.2d 1405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1974

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to appellees, the senior party. … Vogel v. Jones, 486 F.2d 1068 , (CCPA 1973). Inasmuch as we have already expressed the opinion that British I directly supports the count, we find it unnecessary to decide the “inherency” issue raised by appellants.

Roensch v. Billner

212 F.2d 193 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1954

In commenting upon the objection by counsel for appellant to the admission of evidence establishing the qualifications of appellee in the concrete and vacuum concrete fields, the Board cited Miller v. … Chandler v. Mock, 202 F.2d 755 , 40 C.C.P.A., Patents 846.

United States v. Faber

7 Ct. Cust. 406 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

And so in the leading case of Gallagher v. … The pencils involved in Hensel 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.

Irwin & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

This protest was duly heard upon evidence by the Board of General Appraisers, and the same was overruled. The appellants excepted to the board’s decision and now pray for a reversal thereof. … The case of United States v. Borgfeldt, ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 255 ), relates to one of the few instances of such *299 knives with folding blades.