Case law

United States v. Richards

4 Ct. Cust. 528 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1913

Euth v. Oliver

70 F.2d 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1934

Wietzel v. Lacy, supra; Brydle v. Honigbaum, 54 F.(2d) 147 , 19 C. C. P. A. 773. … To the same effect is Trufant & Prindle v. Brown, 1904 C. D. 282, and Ames v. Lindstrom, 1911 C. D. 68. It will be noted that Ames v.

Goldsmith's Sons v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 69 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers, on appeal from the classification of the collectors, sustained the classification in each instance and rendered judgment accordingly. … Smillie & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 365 , T. D. 40520, and cases therein cited.

Albers Bros. Milling Co. v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 236 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1928

That letter was incorporated in the papers forwarded by the collector to the Board of General Appraisers and is as follows: July 22, 1925. Albers Bros. Milling Co., Beattie, Wash. … Justice Brown presided at the hearing in Seattle. The evidence was later considered and the case decided by the first division of the United States Customs Court, of which Justice Brown was a member.

Konet v. Haskins

179 F.2d 1003 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

Appellants cite Koch v. … The board sustained the motion to convert the joint application to a sole application of Haskins. We are in agreement with that holding of the board. In re Roberts, 49 App.D.C. 250 , 263 F. 646 ; Briggs et al. v.

Richard v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 193 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1912

See Frank v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 85 ; T. D. 31633). It is important to remember, however, that while in a sense all enamels are glazes, not all glazes are enamels. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Badische Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1914

. ■ ' *227 Tbe Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed. … The designation of the bases as blue, green, violet, or brown does not at all indicate that they are of the color designated or that they are capable of imparting it, but that the base will produce the designated color when

Hopkins Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1924

. * * * The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest, General Appraiser Brown dissenting, and from the judgment.of the board the importer appealed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is against the evidence and must therefore be reversed.

Kauffman v. Etten

97 F.2d 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

Slaughter v. Malle, 21 App. D. C. 19; Marshall and Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495; Schuster v. Brown, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 932, 69 F. (2d) 373; Angell v. … Gowen v. William F. Hendry and Robert W. King, 17 C. C. P. A.

Rion v. Ault

455 F.2d 570 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1972

Ray v. Kronmiller, 167 F.2d 518 , 35 CC PA 1085 (1948) ; Ritzerfeld v. Kluit-mann, 94 F.2d 392 , 25 CCPA 845 (1938) ; Schuster v. … Brown, 69 F.2d 373 , 21 CC PA 932 (1934) ; and Kreek, Ancillary and Non-ancillary Matters in Patent Interferences, 36 JPOS 7, 15 (1954). . In Myers v.

Application of Wiegand

182 F.2d 633 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1950

Also, it is in accordance with the comment of the Supreme Court in General Electric Co. v. … (Italics quoted) We are not prepared to accept this as sound law and we do not think it is supported by the Supreme Court decision — General Electric Co. v.

Sargent Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 462 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

. ■ Paragraph 92, so far as it is necessary to refer thereto, provides: Common yellow, brown, or gray earthenware, plain, embossed, or salt-glazed common stoneware, and earthenware or stoneware crucibles, * * * twenty-five … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Bush & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 127 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

Manhattan Gas Light Co. v. Maxwell (2 Blatch., 405; 16 Fed. Cas., 601 ); United States v. Nash ( 27 Fed. Cas., 750 ); Marriott v. Brune ( 9 How., 619, 634 ); United States v. Southmayd (ib., 637); Austin v. … See also in this connection United States v. Rosenthal ( 126 Fed., 766 ) and Browne v. United States ( 145 Fed., 1 ).

Vantine & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1919

At the hearing before the Board of General Appraisers the only witness on behalf of the importers, Dr. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Charles F. Baranauckas and Samuel Gelfand

395 F.2d 805 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1968

That content must be determined before the mandates of the Supreme Court set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 , 86 S.Ct. 684, 694 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966) may be accurately applied. … Magil wrote the opinion of the board. 2 .

United States v. Field & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 183 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

Maddock v. Magone ( 152 U. S. 368 ). Downing v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 500 ; T. D. 31530). United States v. Goldberg ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 282 ; T. D. 32573). … D. 28170 had been expressed by the Board of General Appraisers.

Application of Karl Ziegler, Heinz Breil, Erhard Holzkamp and Heinz Martin

443 F.2d 1211 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1971

In re Brown, 406 F.2d 780 , 56 C.C.P.A. 1339 (1969). … Therefore, we affirm the decision of the board. Affirmed. 1 .

Application of Japikse

181 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1950

74-422, “507 Mechanical Movements” — Figs. 118— pages 32 and 33 — Copy in Division 14, Pub-lised 1908 by Brown & Seward, 261 Broadway, N.Y.C. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Donohue

632 F.2d 123 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 11, 1980

This is an appeal from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining *124 the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1 and 5-7 of application serial … In re LeGrice, 49 CCPA 1124, 1145, 301 F.2d 929, 944 , 133 USPQ 365 , 378 *126 (1962), In re Brown, 51 CCPA 1254, 1259, 329 F.2d 1006, 1011 , 141 USPQ 245 , 249 (1964).

Application of John R. Willingham

282 F.2d 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1960

In the opinion of the board, claim 12 included “the heart of the invention recited in claims 3 and 6.” … Justice Brown in Topliff v. Topliff, 1891, 145 U.