Case law

Murphy v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

Norma Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 89 ; United States v. Schoverling, 146 U. S. 76 ; Robertson v. Gerdon, 132 U. S. 454 . Hence such parts are not included within subdivision 1 above recited. … This holding is amply supported by Myers & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 350 , T. D. 40490, and Proctor Co. v. United States, T. D. 40624, G. A. 8917.

Arthur B. Winter v. Maurice P. Lebourg and Harry S. Arendt, Maurice P. Lebourg v. Arthur B. Winter and Harry S. Arendt

394 F.2d 575 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1968

(See also McCullough v. Watkins, 1875 C.D. 129, and Ducas v. Seymour, 1927 C.D. 78, 364 O.G. 3 .) Lebourg argues that the board erred in denying his motion to amend. … Fowler v. Boyce v. Temple et al., 108 O.G. 561 .

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.

Rattan & Cane Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1915

Tbe first of these were held to bo dutiable by tbe board, tbe others free. … See also United States v. Winter & Smillie, supra.

Application of Heritage (Two Cases)

182 F.2d 639 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1950

In that connection the examiner cited the case of Therm-O-Proof Insulation Co. v. Slayter & Co., 7 Cir., 1935, 80 F.2d 557 . … The Hamilton Laboratories, Inc. v. Massengill, 6 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 584 , certiorari denied 311 U.S. 688 , 61 S.Ct. 65 , 85 L.Ed. 444 .

Brumbaugh v. Wilson

134 F.2d 180 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

Davis v. Carrier, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 844, 81 F. (2d) 250. Subsequent to that date, Brumbaugh, in a letter to Wilkes dated. … The board has analyzed this evidence in great detail, and- a review of the same would not be helpful here. We agree with the board’s conclusions.

James v. Stimson

49 F.2d 493 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1931

In Bennett v. Fitzgerald, 18 C. C. P. A. … The cases in point are Jardine v. Hartog, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 164, 36 F. (2d) 606; Wickers v. McKee, 29 App. D. C. 4; Sherwood v. Drewson, 29 App. D. C. 161, 173; Malcom v. Richards, 47 App. D.

In re Phillips

148 F.2d 662 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1945

We are of opinion such reasoning is correct and that those claims should, as the Board of Appeals stated, be considered in effect as “stub claims.” … Ely Norris Safe Co. v. Mosler Safe Co., 62 F. (2d) 524, 16 USPQ 328 ; Directo-plate Corporation v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 51 F. (2d) 199, 10 USPQ 62 ; Gladding-McBean Corporation v. N. Clark & Sons, 16 F. (2d) 50.

American Express Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1912

The case of Kupfer v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 302 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Bernard Harmon

222 F.2d 743 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1955

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 , 38 C.C.P.A., Patents, 858. … We must therefore agree with the board’s holding that the preamble of the claims does not pat-entably distinguish them over the cited art.

In re Murch

464 F.2d 1051 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 24, 1972

We are aware of Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacol Corp., 341 F. … See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc., 460 F. 2d 1096 , 174 USPQ 65, 70-71 (5th Cir. 1972).

Air Products, Inc. v. Marquette Manufacturing Co., Inc.

301 F.2d 348 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1962

As was stated in Hollywood Water Heater Co. v. … Shoe Corporation of America v. The Juvenile Shoe Corporation of America, supra; Vita-Var Corporation v. Galvicon Corporation, 284 F.2d 953 , 48 CCPA 771; E. L. Bruce Company v.

Habicht v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1910

In the case of United States v. Johnson (152 Fed. … Causse v. United States (151 Fed.

In re Ewald

117 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1941

White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47 ; Gen. Electric Co. v. Wabash Co., 304 U. S. 364 . See also In re Hegan, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1182, 97 F. (2d) 86. … The decision of the board is modified, being reversed as to claim 15, and affi/rmed as to claims 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21.

In re Isherwood

40 F.2d 987 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1930

Co. v. Ashland, 235 Fed. 893 ; Reflectolyte Co. v. Luminous Unit Co., 20 F. (2d) 607; In re Bayer, 17 C. C. P. A. 614, 35 F. (2d) 66. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Bourns, Inc. v. International Resistance Company

341 F.2d 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

We think the foregoing observations dispose of the authorities upon which the board based its decision. Thus, in Quaker Oil Co. v. Quaker State Oil Ref. … In Crescent Oil Co. v. W. C.

United States v. Fruit Products Corp.

12 Ct. Cust. 337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the importer’s protest and the Government appealed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In Re Crowell

84 F.2d 206 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1936

This court, following the principle announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of McCarty v. … We are not convinced of error in the decision of the Board of Appeals, and the same is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Patrick H. Hume

346 F.2d 594 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1965

Furthermore, the additional cam means constitutes a V-shaped entry into the nip. … For the foregoing reasons, the board is affirmed as to claim 9 and reversed as to claims 3 and 4. The board's decision is thus modified. Modified. WORLEY, C.

Watts v. Praeger

93 F.2d 904 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

When these three cases reached the board all *808 parties except Watts and Praeger bad been eliminated. … In our decision in the case of Coast, Jr., v. Dubbs, 24 C. C. P. A.