Case law

Morimura Bros. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 475 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1916

In the case of Steinhardt & Bro. v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Shallus v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 316 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1911

In the case of Seeberger v. Wright & Lawther Oil & Lead Manufacturing Co. ( 157 U. … In United States v. Thomas (178 Fed. Rep., 602), the importation consisted of wool on the skin.

United States v. Borgfeldt & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 197 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

ordered by the board neither party now makes objection. … See United States v. Sussfield ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 51 ); Edison v. Lubin (122 Fed. Rep., 240-242); Edison Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edison Mfg. Co. (137 Fed. Rep., 262-266).

United States v. Sanchez

15 Ct. Cust. 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1928

United States v. Schoonmaker et al., 93 Fed. 724 . … Sechrist v. Bryant, 286 Fed. 456 ; Dundee Petroleum Co. v. Clay, 267 Fed. 145 , cert. denied 255 U. S. 574 ; Cox v. Hart, 145 U. S. 376 .

In re Crawford

250 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 13, 1957

(Patents) 1024, 166 F. 2d 834 , 77 USPQ 164 ; Abbott et al. v. Coe, 71 App. D. C. 195, 109 F. 2d 449 , 43 USPQ 267 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Jackson, J., retired, recalled to participate.

American Lava Corp. v. Multronics, Inc.

461 F.2d 836 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1972

The board, however, did not rely on the Grove opinion. … In American Cyanamid Co. v.

Application of Eiane

189 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1951

We think a similar situation was presented in the case of United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228 , 63 S.Ct. 165 , 87 L.Ed. 232 , which is cited in the brief of the Solicitor. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Falk Corp. v. Toro Manufacturing Corp.

493 F.2d 1372 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1974

Toro v. Gleason, supra. … In Hardigg Industries, Inc. v.

Floater Vehicle, Inc. v. Tryco Manfacturing Co.

497 F.2d 1355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1974

Martindell v. Lake Shore Nat. Bank, 15 Ill.2d 272 , 154 N.E.2d 683 (1958). … Coney v. Rockford Life Ins. Co., 67 Ill.App.2d 395 , 214 N.E.2d 1 (1966).

Cassella Color Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 113 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

The comprehensive finding- of facts by the board, which is fully supported by the evidence, we state in the language employed by the board as follows: (1) The manufacturers purchase in Germany a substance which they call … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of James G. Burt and Henry C. Walter

356 F.2d 115 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1966

The rationale is presumably that a radical departure from the prior art in process and/or utility sustains the patentability. * * In the instant case the difference is 10,000 v. 30,000. … The board did not comment on that contention.

In re Jordan

53 F.2d 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1931

In the case of Follen v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is afirmed.

United States v. Globe Overseas Corp.

13 Ct. Cust. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1925

Therefore these articles are not “toys” as defined by this court in the case of Illfelder v. … This motion was not sustained by the board.

Wheeler v. Linton

186 F.2d 738 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1951

Frey v. Wagner, 87 F.2d 212 , 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 823. … Rhinevault v. Pfiester, supra; Bayer v. Rice, 64 App.D.C. 107 , 75 F.2d 238 . For the reasons hereinbefore set out, the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed. Affirmed.

Van Ingen v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 320 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

D. 31007), and of Stein v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 478 ; T. D. 31525). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Strakosh v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

See Prosser v. United States, supra, p. 29 (T. U. 30850). And the evidence shows that the product also contains the rosin and other ingredients above mentioned. … It is impossible, therefore, for us to say that it is composed of petroleum of chief value, and thus bring the case within the case of Hartranft v. Sheppard, supra.

United States v. Heyliger & Raubitschek

10 Ct. Cust. 52 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1920

In the case of Loewenthal & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 209 ; T. … Nevertheless we feel that the common definition of the termin question has been so certainly established both by usage and authority as to justify the board’s present decision. See also United States v.

In re Hughes

152 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1946

See Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glass Co., 277 U. S. 245, 257 ; In re Ferris, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1303, 90 F. (2d) 363, 34 USPQ 52 , 1937 C. D. 697. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is accordingly affirmed.

Raybestos Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

So it was in Hillhouse v. United States ( 152 Fed. 163 ). … Later, in United States v.

In re Slocombe

510 F.2d 1398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 20, 1975

For example, see Corona Co. v. Dovan Corp., 276 U.S. 358 , 48 S.Ct. 380 , 72 L.Ed. 610 (1928); In re Doumani, 281 F.2d 215 , 47 CCPA 1120 (1960). … This portion of the board’s opinion is not considered relevant to the issues presented in the instant appeal to this court. . Interference No. 94,426. See Smith v. Horne, 59 CCPA 712, 450 F.2d 1401 (1971). .