Case law

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 Lamb

146 F.2d 277 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 11, 1944

See National Tube Co. v. Mark et al., 216 Fed. 507 , 515 to 521, inclusive. Furthermore, such introductory clauses have been held not to be limitations in claims in applications for patents since as early as 1869. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Walker

99 F.2d 976 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1938

We agree with this holding of the board. It appears to us that no error was made by the tribunals below and that the decision of the board should be affirmed. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is a-ffirmed.

Ferris v. Switzer

172 F.2d 238 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1949

The Board of Interference Examiners held that the examiner’s decision on the appellant’s motion to dissolve was incorrect and reversed it with respect to appellees’ Example 3. … I, page 1022, as follows : ■. fuse v. Transitive: 1. To liquefy by heat; to render fluid; dissolve; melt. -2. To .unite or blend, as if melted together. *804 Intransitive: 1.

Duffy-Mott Company, Inc. v. Cumberland Packing Company

424 F.2d 1095 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1970

The only precedent cited to us by applicant on this point is Stardust, Inc. v. Birdsboro Knitting Mills, Inc., 119 USPQ 270 (TTAB 1958). … We agree with the board that issuance of the requested registrations will not damage op-poser and the decision of the board is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Nos. 45,019 and 45,030. 2 .

Van Ingen v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 320 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

D. 31007), and of Stein v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 478 ; T. D. 31525). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Gillett

133 F.2d 910 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

Appellant relies heavily on the case of Becket v. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, 69 App. D. C. 51, 98 F. (2d) 332, 38 U. S. P. Q. 26. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated the decision of the Board of Appeals is affvrTned.

Sherman v. Johnson

117 F.2d 266 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1941

In the instant case we are in disagreement with the board with reference to its conclusion that the count is unambiguous. … See Cleveland Gas Burner & Appliance Co. v. American Heater Corp., 38 F. (2d) 760, 763.

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.

United States v. Globe Overseas Corp.

13 Ct. Cust. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1925

Therefore these articles are not “toys” as defined by this court in the case of Illfelder v. … This motion was not sustained by the board.

Jenkins Publishing Company v. Metalworking Publishing Company, Inc.

315 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1963

Appellant argues that the board is in error in holding that the inclusion of WESTERN in appellant’s trademark WESTERN METALWORKING is insufficient to obviate a likelihood of confusion. … Crime Confessions, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications Inc., 139 F.2d 499 , 31 CCPA 760; In re Wings Publishing Co., Inc., 148 F.2d 214 , 32 CCPA 926.

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 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.

United States v. Ash

22 C.C.P.A. 395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1934

Oceanic Trading Co. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 146, T. D. 46478; Amtorg Trading Corp. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 532, T. D. 46975. … In the case of United States v. Baldwin Universal Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 394, 398, T.

United States v. Morimura Bros.

7 Ct. Cust. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1916

The board’s conclusion was rested upon the doctrine of the case of Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93 ; T. … See United States v. Downing ( 201 U. S., 354 ), Hempstead v. United States ( 158 Fed., 584 ), and Stern v.

Application of Carroll Trowbridge Kennedy

436 F.2d 1394 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1971

We modify the board’s decision. … Second, appellant contends that the board failed to consider objective evidence of non-obviousness in accordance with Graham v.

Application of Stevens

173 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

Articles of the type referred to are: horseshoe calks, Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp Co., 2 Cir., 112, F. 61; 1902 CD. 583; Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co., C.C., 136 F. 210 , and Williams Calk Co. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

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.

Oberle v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers, relying upon the case of United States v. Wyman & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264 ; T. D. 33485), held that it did not. … We think this holding of the board was in line with the decision of this court in United States v. Wyman, supra, and the decision will be affirmed.

Pearman v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 284 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers OYerruled the protests. … of General Appraisers was right. — Central Vermont Railway Co. v.