Case law

In re Harrison

77 F.2d 635 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1935

Note valve 68 of Fix-man and valve V', Fig. 5 of Tinker * * *, and held that the appealed claims were substantially met by the patents to Isom and Pratt. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

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 Nikola J. Trbojevich

361 F.2d 1013 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 16, 1966

That velocity (speed) is merely a way of describing and governing the time the two subcritical masses are in proximity is as fundamental as v=d/t. … The board’s decision in respect to these claims is also affirmed. WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH and ALMOND, JJ., join in the foregoing opinion. 1 .

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.

Richard v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 252 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

The decision of the board was clearly right, on the authority of Vantine v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 488 ; T. D. 33124) and Hirsch v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 82 ; T. D. 33365). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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.

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.

United States v. Stone

12 Ct. Cust. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers should be and accordingly is affirmed.

Herbert A. McAninch and Spencer H. Mieras v. Loren J. O'Brien

443 F.2d 1403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1971

This court has said on a number of occasions that findings of fact made by the board in interpreting a disclosure are not to be set aside lightly or in the absence of cogent evidence of mistake. See Rodli v. … Phillips, 154 F.2d 139 , 33 CCPA 865 (1946); Harris v. Clifford, 363 F.2d 922 , 53 CCPA 1463 (1966). Compare In re Denny, 397 F.2d 1020 , 55 CCPA 1315 (1968).

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).

Kenyon Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 344 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1913

Arthur v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70 ); In re Wise ( 93 Fed., 443 ); Drew v. Grinnell ( 115 U. S., 477 ); Schiff v. United States ( 99 Fed., 555 ); Robertson v. Edelhoff ( 91 Fed., 642 ). … In Hague v.

Imre J. Hegyi v. Ernst Albers-Schoenberg v. Pieter Geldermans and Pieter Van Den Ban

280 F.2d 859 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 20, 1960

The board resolved numerous issues, some of which have been raised on appeal. Example E, however, was held to be a constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter of the count, the board relying on Den Beste v. … Compare Blicke v. Treves, 241 F.2d 718 , 44 CCPA 753.

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.

In re Wahlforss

117 F.2d 270 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1941

In the instant case appellants rely strongly upon this court’s decisions in the cases of Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 749, 79 F. (2d) 922, and Walsh et al. v. Davidson et al. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Frederic O. Hess v. Charles C. Bland

347 F.2d 835 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1965

The board concluded they did not. … Later the V-nozzle was blown out.

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.

Carlowitz v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 172 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1911

Again, in Goldenberg Bros. & Co. v. United States (130 Fed. … See also Mavtner v. United States (84 Fed.

John L. Hudson v. Joseph Giuffrida

328 F.2d 918 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

Appellant argues before this court that under the circumstances, deliberate delay in testing the invention was justified, citing Keizer v. … The board found it unnecessary to decide whether any of these dates were proved.

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.

United States v. Spingarn Bros.

5 Ct. Cust. 2 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1913

In Oberteuffer v. … So in Oberteuffer v.