Case law

In re Hobson

152 F.2d 998 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1946

Harvey Hubble, 267 Fed. 572 ; Standard Cap & Seal Corp. v. Coe, 537 O. G. 713 ; 124 Fed. (2d) 278.) We are in accord with the holding of the Board that the involved claims define no patentable combination. … Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co., 174 U. S. 492 ; Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S. 515 , and Pickering v. McCollough, 104 U. S. 310 .

United States v. Post Fish Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

(Lake Ontario Fish Co. v. United States, sufra.) … United States v. Morris European & American Express Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146 -147; T. D. 32386). The decisions of the Board of General Appraisers in suits 1167 and 1212 are affirmed.

In re Bellis

45 F.2d 257 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1930

We agree with the conclusion reached by the Board of Appeals that the claims should be rejected for lack of patentable novelty over the disclosure of Eaches. … In Bellis Heat Treating Co. v. Heatbath Corp. et al., 23 F. (2d) 239, the particular heat-treating bath in Eaches was held unpat-entable. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Rumpp v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1916

Rumpp & Sons v. … In the case of John Wanamaker v.

Royal Crown Cola Co. v. Sweetie Beverages, Inc.

309 F.2d 503 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1962

Appellant urges several reasons for reversal of the board’s decision. … We find nothing in the infringement action in Nehi v. Becker et al., D.C., 3 Fed.Supp. 94, which would have any material bearing on the facts and issues here. For these reasons we affirm the decision of the board.

Macloughlin v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 37 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1920

As to the first and second of the cards thus described we may say that they fall directly within the ruling of this court in the case of the American Colortype Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 212 ; T. … According to these views we reverse the decision of the board in so far as it overruled the protest in relation to the first two pictures hereinabove described, and affirm the board's decision in so far as it relates to the

In re Schwendler

115 F.2d 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 8, 1940

See Holland Furniture v. Perkins Glue 275 U. S. 512 ; 1928 C. … The decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming that of the examiner in the rejection of the appealed claims, is affirmed.

In re Schibsted

49 F.2d 823 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

All the other claims were rejected by the board. … (Patents) 1057, 47 F. (2d) 958; American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., - U. S. -.

Mount Washington Tanker Co. v. United States

665 F.2d 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1981

Co. v. United States, 60 Treas. … Burnet v.

Bechtold v. Lanser

82 F.2d 415 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1936

In the case of Phelan v. Green, 21 C. C. P. A. … Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 ; Robinson v. Heising, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 895, 55 F. (2d) 472; Hendrickson et al. v. Ronning et al., 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1040, 76 F. (2d) 137.

Bush & Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1915

State v. Winters (Kans. Sup., 25 Pac., 237 ). … State v.

Altorfer v. Haag

74 F.2d 129 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 24, 1934

The board stated: “We, however, prefer the first view as to this situation.” … We think the Board was in error in applying the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, supra, so as to deny Severson priority of the involved invention.

In the Matter of the Application of James H. Casey

370 F.2d 576 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1967

See, e. g., Kropa v. Robie et al., 187 F.2d 150 , 38 CCPA 858, and cases cited therein. We know no general rule for deciding the weight to be given preambles as positive structural limitations. … Upon consideration of the arguments of counsel and analysis of the authorities cited, we find no reversible error in the decision of the board. The decision of the board is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

In re Ferenci

84 F.2d 394 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1936

. *1274 Upon appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner in part. … See Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543 . The Solicitor for the Patent Office submitted a two page brief, calling attention to the fact that the case of In re Pedersen, 22 C. C. P. A.

In re Lawson

36 F.2d 525 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1929

Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310 ; Tashjian v. Forderer Cornice Works, 14 Fed. Rep. (2d) 414. … We find no error in this holding.of the board. The decision of the board is affirmed:

United States v. Smith & Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1924

—Movius v. Arthur ( 95 U. S. 144, 147 ); United States v. Riggs ( 203 U. S. 136 ); United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 158, 164, 165 ; T. D. 31211). … We concur in the conclusion reached by the Board of General Appraisers, and accordingly the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Lang v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1920

On appeal to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, Spencer v. Philadelphia Smelting & Refining Co. ( 124 Fed., 1002 ), this decision of the board was affirmed. … Spencer v. Philadelphia Smelting & Refining Co. ( 124 Fed., 1002 ).

Crecca v. Rippen

112 F.2d 170 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1940

James v. Clayton, Kerrick & Stadt, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1329, 90 F. (2d) 337. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Mitchell v. White

93 F.2d 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 23, 1937

Upon appeal to the Board of Appeals, the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, awarding priority to White, was affirmed, by a majority of the board, one member thereof dissenting. … Field v. 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.

Jack Poust & Co. v. Gross

460 F.2d 1076 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1972

See: In re General Electric Company, [49 CCPA 1186, 304 F. 2d 691 ,] 134 USPQ 190 (CCPA, 1962); and Dan River Mills v. … An example is Standard International Corp v.