Case law

In re Modine

57 F.2d 355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

The Board of Appeals differed with the examiner as to the Harrison reference, but rejected the claim upon the other references cited. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Sussman v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

Bradford v. American Lithographic Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 318, 323 ; United States v. Martorelli, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 327, 331 . … United States v. Martorelli, supra, at page 331; Hobe Button Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 341, 346 .

In re Mason

156 F.2d 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1946

The v arious materials used by applicant are shown to be old in a like relation in the art. The composition and the method of making it are obvious in view of the art. In re White 397 O. … The examiner quoted a pertinent holding from In re White, supra, which the board approved. So do we.'

Guthman v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 170 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1911

No testimony was introduced in tins case before the Board of General Appraisers other than a sample of the merchandise, which, being referred to the analyst in charge of the port of New York, was returned as “Mohair, 29.35 … In the later decisions, however, and we think it has been well settled for a long while, a broader scope has been assigned these words. *171 In Arnold v. United States ( 147 U.

Johnson Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1916

As the importers have failed to furnish any testimony upon which any separation of the goods for tariff purposes may be potentially made, we think the case falls within the reasoning of United States v. Ranlett ( 172 U. … The decision of the board to that effect is affirmed.

French Import Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 460 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1917

. *462 The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … See Cadwalader v. Wanamaker ( 149 U. S., 532 ) and Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. S., 555 ). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Ross Products Inc. v. United States

48 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1960

He relies on United States v. F. W. … See United States v. Harry Grunberg, 41 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 520.

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.

Nestle's Food Co. v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 451 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1929

Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U. S. 143, 146 ; Hannibal, etc., R. R. v. Packet Co., 125 U. S. 260, 271 . … Eldridge was neither inspected by the customs officials nor placed on board the ship under their supervision.

Application of Wayne H. Reynolds

443 F.2d 384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

We find the examiner’s position on obviousness to be sound, and the board’s decision on claims 9-14 is accordingly affirmed. … As was stated by the court in Technicon Instruments Corp. v. Cole Instruments, Inc., 255 F.

United States v. Knauth

3 Ct. Cust. 419 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1912

We held in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329 ; T. … In the case of United States v. Georgia Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 410 ; T.

United States v. Williams

3 Ct. Cust. 152 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The issues of law presented in this cause and the decision are substantially the same as those presented in United States v. … For these reasons and those in said case given and upon the construction therein announced, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers herein should be, and is, affirmed.

Application of Albert A. Carletti and Welsh C. Whittlesey

328 F.2d 1020 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1964

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of the claim in an application for a design patent, serial No. 56,122, filed May 28, 1959, for “GASKET.” … Walker on Patents, Deller Ed., Sec. 138, p. 434; Connecticut Paper Products case, cited by the board, supra, Hueter v. Compco Corp., 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 416 ; Applied Arts Corp. v.

In re Guastavino

83 F.2d 913 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1936

There was no appeal to the Board of Appeals from the examiner’s rejection of those two claims, and, as of course, they are not included in the appeal to us. … Appellant places great reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, rendered in December, 1868, in the case of Morey v. Lockwood, 75 U. S. 230 .

Minton v. Thomas

48 F.2d 425 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

Other cases cited, and to the point are: Eibel Process Co. v. Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45 ; Wickelman v. Dick, 88 Fed. 264 ; Beckwith v. Malleable Iron Range Co., 174 Fed. 1001 ; General Electric Co. v. … Sangamo Electric Co., 174 Fed. 141 ; Vacuum Gleaner Co. v. Thompson, 258 Fed. 239 . The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Lenroot, J., did not participate in this case.

United States v. Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1917

D. 20326, and the case of Spencer v. Philadelphia Smelting & Refining Co. ( 124 Fed., 1002 ). *228 These authorities had, prior to the presentation of the question to this court in the case of United States v. … The decision pf the Board of General Appraisers is reversed and the action of the collector affirmed.

United States v. Meier & Frank Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

The protest was submitted upon evidence to the Board of General Appraisers and was sustained, from which decision the Government now appeals. … The following definition of “toys” was written by Judge Smith for this court in the case of Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 109 ; T.

Prestige Group Limited v. Home Decorators, Inc.

292 F.2d 298 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 12, 1961

Under these circumstances, it is concluded that confusion or mistake or deception of purchasers is quite likely to occur, with resulting damage to op-poser.” , We stated in Home Decorators, Inc. v. … For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Appeal No. 6679. However, we reverse the decision of the board in Appeal No. 6678. Modified. 1 . British Reg.

Mego Corp. v. United States

505 F.2d 1288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1974

Morris Friedman v. United States, 50 CCPA 53, 56, C.A.D. 819 (1963). … United States v. Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., 57 CCPA 102, C.A.D. 986, 426 F. 2d 1308 (1970); F. L. Smith & Co. v United States, 56 CCPA 77, C.A.D. 958, 409 F. 2d 1369 (1969).

In re Kylstra

81 F.2d 487 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1937

(Patents) 1293, 84 F. (2d) 221, and the oft-cited case of Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 . … The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Potts v.