Case law

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 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). .

Johann Maria Farina Gegenüber Dem Jülichs-Platz v. Chesebrough-Pond, Inc.

470 F.2d 1385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

Side-by-side comparison is not the test, Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. Clevite Corp., 324 F.2d 1010 , 51 CCPA 815, 817 (1963). … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

Rattan & Cane Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1915

Tbe first of these were held to bo dutiable by tbe board, tbe others free. … See also United States v. Winter & Smillie, supra.

Application of Gaetke

201 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1953

Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195 , 109 F.2d 449 . … Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 , 71 *951 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 .

Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 159 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1911

Fisk v. Seeberger (38 Fed. Rep., 718-719), Walker v. Seeberger (38 Fed. Rep., 724, 726), Strakosh v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 360 ; T. D. 31453), In re Herter Bros. (53 Fed. Rep., 913), Davies v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Hultquist

203 F.2d 758 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1953

The board also affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims as unpatentable over the process disclosed by Moos et al. … Dow Chemical Co. v. Coe, 76 App.D.C. 317 , 132 F.2d 577 . In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the appealed claims were properly rejected as unpatentable over the patent to Moos et al.

Minneapolis Cold Storage Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 225 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

United States v. Vowell et al. ( 5 Cranch, 13 U. S., 104); Meredith v. United States ( 13 Pet., 38 U. S., 486); Arnold et al. v. United States (9 Cranch., 13 U. S., 104 ); United States v. Cordero ( 1 Ct. Cust. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Levy v. Gould

87 F.2d 524 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1937

only be established by proof of disclosure to others or embodiment of the invention in some clearly perceptible form, such as drawings or model, with sufficient proof of identity in point of time,” and cites Mergenthaler v. … The decision of the board in awarding priority to the party Nice in interference “C” (patent appeal No. 3730) is affirmed.

In Re Bijur

40 F.2d 999 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of .Appeals affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting the claims in issue — Nos. 50 and 51 — in appellant’s application for a patent for an alleged invention … Slattery v. Lamer (Cust. & Pat. App.) 36 F.(2d) 298 . We are in accord with the conclusion reached 'by the tribunals below, and the decision of the Board .of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In Re Hawkins

57 F.2d 367 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

In that case the majority opinion quoted from the opinion in the ease of Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1, 24 , 22 L. … In the ease of Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U. S. 301 , 29 S. Ct. 495, 500 , 53 L.

In re Malcolm

56 F.2d 876 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

In other cases such as Johnson et al. v. Johnston, 60 Fed. 618 ; Rand, McNally & Co. v. Exchange Scrip-Book Co., 187 Fed. 984 ; and Benjamin, Menu Card Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed,.

Casazza v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 627 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

May Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 266 ; Diana v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 290 ; Kee Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 105 ; T. D. 40943. … For the reasons given the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed. T. D. 41485

Mitchell Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 104 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1920

The board in deciding this case appears to have felt bound to hold that United States v. Baxter ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 99 ; T. … The decision of the board is reversed.

United States v. Kennedy

7 Ct. Cust. 442 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1917

The reports of the collector submitting these protests to the board are identical except as to dates. … In vie v of said report duty was assessed at 20 per cent under paragraph 167 of said act. Note sections 5 and 6, and 7 of T.

In re White

39 F.2d 974 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

The opinion of the board also states: The Candy Cook Book describes processes for making fondant from the ingredients sugar, milh, corn sirup and butter. … Asbestos Shingle, Slate & Sheathing Co., et al., v. Rock Fibre Mfg. Co., 217 Fed. 66 . The decision of the board is affirmed.

In re Murch

464 F.2d 1051 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 24, 1972

We are aware of Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacol Corp., 341 F. … See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc., 460 F. 2d 1096 , 174 USPQ 65, 70-71 (5th Cir. 1972).

American Express Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1912

The case of Kupfer v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 302 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Fernandez v. Hill

102 F.2d 894 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

Upon appeal the Board of Appeals affirmed this decision. The only testimony in the case at bar is the testimony taken in interference No. 10,072, patent appeal No. 4120, Fernandez v. Gill *1130 man, Jr., 26 C. C. P. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed

Spielmann v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1912

See United States v. Falk ( 204 U. S., 143 ); *370 United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos ( 209 U. S., 337 ); and White & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 327 ; T. D. 32054). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.