Case law

Application of Oskar Sus and Werner Schaefer

306 F.2d 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

Merrill v. … Unite1d Carbon Company and United Carbon Company, Inc. v. Binney & Smith Company, 317 U.S. 228 , 63 S.Ct. 165 , 87 L.Ed. 232 .

Burr & Hardwick v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 71 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1919

Barbee, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise and the assessment here are the same as in the cases of Carter v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 253 ; T. D. 35475); Wilson v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Augustus A. Straub

328 F.2d 999 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1964

Neither the ■examiner nor the board has pointed to .■such an element in the references. … . * * * » For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the board is reversed. Reversed.

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.

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.

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.

In re Alexanderson

69 F.2d 541 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1934

Arguing upon the basis of the holding in Milburn v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Katz

467 F.2d 939 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1970

Accordingly, the decision of the board is affirmed. Serial No. 524,666 filed February 23, 1966 as a continuation of serial No. 807,383 filed April 20,1959. Katz v. Ladd, 243 V. … Kata v. Ladd, supra at 585, 146 USPQ at 460 . Id. at 586 , 146 USPQ at 460 .

United-Hagie Hybrids, Inc. v. Escambia Chemical Corporation

404 F.2d 987 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1969

In evaluating the testimony adduced of record and considering the arguments advanced by counsel, we think the rationale set forth by this court in Diamond Alkali Co. v. … We have considered these features but agree with the board that in appearance the marks are sufficiently dissimilar that there is no likelihood of confusion.

Application of Minoo Dossabhoy Mehta

347 F.2d 859 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 8, 1965

Thus, we agree with the examiner and the board that the compounds of claim 13 are obvious. … For the foregoing reasons the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

United States v. Ringk

4 Ct. Cust. 349 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1913

United States v. Stirn ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 62 ; T. D. 32350); United States v. Nichols ( 186 U. S., 298 ). … United States v. Nichols ( 186 U. S., 298 ); Austin v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 465 ; T. D. 31508).

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.

United States v. Wanamaker

14 Ct. Cust. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

In United States v. Emrich & Schorsch, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 199 , T. … In this view we are supported by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Citroen, 223 U.

In re Dubilier

62 F.2d 374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1933

, it is nevertheless true'that the effect of the impedances of the French structure is to exclude high-frequency currents from passing through *813 said impedances while at the same time permitting power current to flow v/ … For the reasons- stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed'.

Ireland v. Smith

97 F.2d 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1938

Rossiter v. Ellis, 74 F.2d 455 , 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 793. In the instant case no such motion was made at any time. … Janette v. Folds & Persons, 38 F.2d 361 , 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 879.

United States v. Lo Curto

17 C.C.P.A. 342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

In Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. … In United States v. R. C.

Thomas A. Kirkham and Norman W. Rosenberg v. Thomas Victor Arden and Gilbert William Merriman

316 F.2d 242 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1963

This court said in Stenger et al. v. … The case of Special Equipment Co. v.

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. Sprague

4 Ct. Cust. 358 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1913

United States v. S. Palma ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 140 ; T. D. 33412). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.