Case law

Application of Ralph C. Walling

228 F.2d 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1955

The patent to Sell discloses a food product comprising peanut butter to which has been added brown sugar, syrup, sorghum, honey or glucose in syrup form. … The decision of the Board of Appeals ■is affirmed. Affirmed. JACKSON, Judge, retired, recalled to ■participate.

S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Gaston Johnston Corporation

305 F.2d 474 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

JOHNSON & SON, INC., Appellant, v. GASTON JOHNSTON CORPORATION, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6779. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. July 25, 1962. Francis C. Browne, William E. Schuyler, Jr., Andrew B. … (Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C., of counsel), and Roger D. Mulhollen, Racine, Wis., for appellant. Richard W.

Cone v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1926

There the board said, quoting the report of the appraiser: The fiber in question is hard and wiry, brown in color, and is variously known as Indian or Palmyra fiber, Bahia piassava, and Para piassava. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the .several protests in so far as the same affect the goods imported and designated as grades G U, V F C, and

United States v. William Alsberg & Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 109 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1928

of General Appraisers, upon a petition filed and supported by satisfactory evidence under such rules as the board may prescribe, that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement … The majority opinion, written by Justice Sullivan and concurred in by Justice Brown, is primarily based upon the view that the Customs Court was without authority to limit by rule the time within which petitions for remission

Foss v. Oglesby

127 F.2d 312 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1942

In the case of Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 26 C. C. P. A. … Brown et al. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 ; Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Cary, 147 U. S. 623 ; Arlington Mfg. Co. v. Celluloid Co., 97 Fed. 91 ; In re Braselton, 51 App. D. C. 31, 273 Fed. 759 .

Samuel Egnot v. Robert Looker

387 F.2d 680 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

The parties herein are the junior party Samuel Egnot, assignor to Huck Manufacturing Company (hereinafter Huck) and Robert Looker, assignor to Brown-Line Corporation. … Conner v. Joris, 241 F.2d 944 , 44 CCPA 772; Walker v. Altorfer, 111 F.2d 164 , 27 CCPA 1130. Egnot worked for Huck Manufacturing Company of Detroit from 1952 or 1953 until September 1962 as a sales engineer.

Scharmann v. Kassel

179 F.2d 991 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

See Ireland v. Smith, 97 F.2d 95 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1258; Watson v. … Brown v. Barton, 102 F.2d 193 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 889.

United States v. Hurlburt & Sons

11 Ct. Cust. 24 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1921

In the present *27 case no attempt was made at the trial before the board to establish the exact time of day when either the entry or the reliquidation in question actually took place, and furthermore the board adopted the … —See Dutcher v. Wright ( 94 U. S., 553, 561 ); Taylor v. Brown ( 147 U. S., 640, 644 ); Owensboro v. Water Works ( 243 U. S., 166, 171 ); Hess-Bright Mfg. Co. v.

Herz & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 547 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1915

In each-case the board states: The testimony in United States v. … Brown?' — A. These insulators are made by the same people who make the gas burners, the so-called lava burners. *551 Q.

Richard v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 359 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1913

Frank v. *363 United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 85 ; T. D. 31633). … In the view of the case above expressed the decision of the board should be affirmed.

Oksenholt v. Boyd

104 F.2d 378 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1939

. * * * Other authorities relied upon are Browne v. Harrison, 58 App. D. C. 228, 26 F. (2d) 1006; Dosenbach v. Webster, 51 App. D. C. 256, 278 Fed. 397 ; and Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U. S. 58 . … The cases of Browne v. Harrison, and Dosenbach v.

In re Kirwan

171 F.2d 326 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

the fish is seared before canning. : The publication by Webster et al. discloses that fish may be placed in a deep kettle provided with a frying basket in which one layer of fish in the basket is cooked to an even golden brown … In view of our conclusion it is deemed unnecessary to discuss the pass upon other points raised by the argument of appellant, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is accordingly arfjvrmed.

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1932

That an import duty under the clause of the Constitution here under consideration is a tax can not be questioned; we can find no case where it has been questioned since the decision in Brown v. … Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 12 How. 298 ; Alaska v. Troy, 258 U. S. 101 .

Application of Eric D. Brown

329 F.2d 1006 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1964

DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Ladd, 328 F.2d 547 , (D.C.Cir. 1964). … In Phillips Petroleum Co. v.

In re Willetts

73 F.2d 622 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1934

Furthermore, we are unable to agree that the heating furnaces of Brown-lee by means of which the flowing, molten glass is “ positively heated ”, as the specification declares, are equivalents, in a patentable sense, of appellant … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals denying pat-entability over the prior art is reversed.

Crane v. Carlson

125 F.2d 709 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1942

From the decision of the board appellants have taken this appeal. … Brown, Jr., v. Barton, 102 F.2d 193 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 889. This is true, even though the lack of diligence be upon the part of the Government. Krebs et al. v. Melicharek, 97 F.2d 477 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents 1362.

United States v. Parry

15 Ct. Cust. 180 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1927

The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers sustaining the importer’s protest was, therefore, affirmed. United States v. Parry, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 172 , T. D. 41696. … On the hearing before the board the importer testified that the articles imported were soccer football shoes composed of brown leather and with six leather cleats nailed to the bottom; that the shoes were used to play soccer

The Coca-Cola Company v. William C. Clay, Jr.

324 F.2d 198 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1963

Browne, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. Arthur H. Seidel, Philadelphia, Pa. (Edward C. Gonda, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellee. … E. g., Arnold, Schwinn & Co. v. Evans Products Co., 302 F.2d 765 , 49 CCPA 1113; Johnson & Johnson v.

Application of Jack Raymond Bird, Geoffrey William Meetham and Marcus Alan Wheeler

344 F.2d 979 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1965

We find In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 , 49 CCPA 993; Traitel Marble Co. v. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 18 F.2d 66 (2d Cir. 1927), Tilghman v. … For the foregoing reasons the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

United States v. Davies, Turner & Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 50 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1928

Justice Brown, from which action the Government has appealed to this court. … by the board, conformed with the lexicographic definitions of lanolin.