Case law

Bennett v. Sonnenfeld

117 F.2d 762 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1941

D. 167; Clement v. Richards v. Meissner, 113 O. G. 1143 , 1905 C. D. 492; and Campbell v. Jackson, 328 O. G. 781 , 1924 C. D. 101. … The Board of Appeals agreed with the Examiner of Interferences on this question of diligence, and we are in accord with the lower tribunals in this respect. See Riemenschneider v. Matthaei, 26 C. C. P. A.

In re Wait

83 F.2d 696 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1936

McCarty v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 160 U. S. 110 ; In re Ora Krichbaum, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 979, 39 F. (2d) 280; In re Irving L. Stern, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1234, 40 F. (2d) 1000. … We find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals and the same is affirmed.

United States v. American Express Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

Bland, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: These are cross-appeals from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers. … However, in the case of United States v. Berger and Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 362 , T.

Application of Walter Spormann and Joachim Heinke

363 F.2d 444 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 21, 1966

Friedrich et al. make no mention of it, as the board conceded. Their process is not appellants’ process. … Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 , 37 S.Ct. 416 , 61 L.Ed. 871 .

Warren v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 461 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

The importers did attempt to prove by the Government examiner, an admitted expert in art, that the importation was of an artistic merit equal to that of the vase involved in the case of United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Warren R. Attwood

343 F.2d 493 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1965

The boundaries of the grooves coincide so that in effect there are also V-shaped circular teeth or ridges. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

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. De Villamil

12 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of O'Keefe

202 F.2d 767 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1953

In re Lee, 193 F.2d 186 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 752, 756—757; International Standard Electric Corp. v. Kingsland, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 355 , 169 F.2d 890 . … Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 , 43 S.Ct. 322 , 67 L.Ed. 523 .

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.

Loewenthal v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

De Vries, Judge, delivered tbe opinion of tbe court: These are appeals from two decisions of tbe Board of General Appraisers. … It follows that the decisions of the Board of General Appraisers should be and are reversed.

Muskat v. Schmelkes

140 F.2d 984 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1944

In Bennett v. Fitzgerald, 18 C. C. P. A. … The board held that the record fairly showed that the invention of Schmelkes had not been concealed or suppressed, which made inapplicable the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D.

Rice Millers' Ass'n v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1928

D. 36423; Rosenberg & Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 213, 218 , T. D. 36510; Isler & Guye v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 74, 77 , T. D. 38339; United States v. Brown & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 3, 4 , T. … Watson, Geach & Co. v. York Metal & Alloys Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 449 , T. D. 42112; Hutton v. Schell, sufra; Lamb v. Robertson, 38 Fed. 716 ; Stewart, Howe & May Co. v. United States, 113 Fed. 928 ; Woolworth v.

In re Murray

77 F.2d 648 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1935

About these heating elements is positioned a box-like structure made of sheet metal, the sides of which are corrugated, the corrugations of the two sides cooperating to-form a series of V-shaped vertical flues through which … For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Simpson v. Voorhees

158 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

The exact issue may be fairly understood by a reading of the board’s decision and we think the board’s views on this question should be seo out at some length. … Beatie v. Pollock, 21 C. C. P. A. 1150, 1934 C. D. 505, 448 O. G. 5 , 71 F. (2d) 306, 21 U. S. P. Q. 619.

Rhodes v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 100 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1911

The case is therefore not distinguishable from United States v. United Cigar Stores Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 450 ; T. … The case falls within United States v. United Cigar Stores Co., supra. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Staunton

35 F.2d 63 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

Blanb, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals denying application for a design patent for a claimed orna-, mental design for a radio reproducer. … Baker et al. v. Hughes-Evans Co., 270 F. R. 97. We see no invention in applicant’s design. The decision of the Board of Patents Appeals is affirmed.

Clark v. Camras

204 F.2d 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1953

Van Hulst v. … Van Ilulst v. Sullivan, supra. But, in applying this latter rule the word “reasonably” should not be deleted, Harris v.

Hill v. Hill

54 F.2d 950 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1932

Appellant contends that both the examiner and the board erred in this conclusion. … Appellant, in support of this contention, cites the case of Beidler v. Caps & Leininger, 17 C. C. P. A.

Celotex Co. v. Chicago Panelstone Co.

49 F.2d 1051 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1931

Van Camp Sea Food Co., Inc., v. Westgate Sea Products, 48 F. (2d) 950, 18 C. C. P. A. —, and cases therein cited. … American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, Commissioner, et al., 269 U. S. 372 , 46 S. Ct. 160, 162 , 70 L. Ed. 317 , and eases therein cited; B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Clive E. Hockmeyer et al., 40 F.(2d) 99 , 17 C. C. P.