Case law

Germeshausen v. Hilliard

201 F.2d 896 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1953

a reduction to practice, we must concur with the findings of the board. … circumstances relating to the nature of Germeshausen’s work, his necessary concern with private partnership matters, and the fact that his activities beginning with the commencement of the late war until the arrival of V-J

In re Schlittler

234 F.2d 882 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 21, 1956

Ogden, 18 Wall. 120 ; Stitt v. Eastern R. Co., 22 Fed. 649 ; Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. Nelson, 203 Fed. 484 ; and Buser v. Novelty Tufting Machine Co., 151 Fed. 478 . In Coffin v. … Co. v. S. S.

Walter C. Alexander, Leo Nordwald and Robert P. Wanger v. Howard J. Williams, Francis R. Rogers and Basil J. Ryder

342 F.2d 466 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1965

The General Electric argument relies upon the following portion of Agawam Co. v. … . * * * ” We find particularly apposite to this case our holding in Polye v.

Cusano v. Decepoli

214 F.2d 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1954

Barnet v. Wied, 195 F.2d 311 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 882, and cases therein cited. Neither party took testimony. … Appellant then requested a final hearing before the board, which was held, and the board affirmed the holding of the examiner and awarded priority to appellee.

In re Hoffman

68 F.2d 978 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 5, 1934

Gorham v. White, 14 Wall. 511 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re Schnell

46 F.2d 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1931

In some eases, as in Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster ([C. C. … S ee .Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218 , 8 L. Ed. 376 . As was said in Ashley v.

Fernandez v. Gillman

102 F.2d 891 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

referred to in the decision of the board. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Johnson

558 F.2d 1008 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 16, 1977

The board indicated that “it is manifestly immaterial” why appellants limited their claims. … See Vogel v. Jones, 486 F,2d 1068, 179 USPQ 425 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1973). 1973). . The provisos actually exclude more than species [1] and [2].

Martin v. Friendly

64 F.2d 995 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1933

As to all features except this, therefore, the decision in Martin v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Harmon

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

Kropa v. Robie et al., 38 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 858, 187 F. (2d) 150, 88 USPQ 478 . … We must there- . fore agree with the board’s holding that the preamble of the claims does not patentably distinguish them over the cited art.

Park & Tilford v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 53 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1919

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protests and the importers appeal. … See Aurola v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 340 ; T. D. 32077) and authorities therein cited.

United States v. May Department Stores Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1928

The above-quoted excerpts from Morse v. … The board held that there was no presumption of correctness in the collector’s finding, for the reason that witnesses testified in great numbers, and cited Morse v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 553 , T. D. 41432.

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.

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.

Formica Corp. v. Lefkowitz

590 F.2d 915 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1979

Loshbough v. Allen, 404 F.2d 1400 , 56 CCPA 913, 160 USPQ 204 (1966). See also Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 , 183 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1974); Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, supra. … Weil v. Dann, supra, 503 F.2d at 563 , 183 USPQ at 300 .

In re Young

90 F.2d 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1937

The foremost vertical member is provided with a V-shaped bridle which is slidably connected with the tow-line. … For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed with respect to claims 1, 2, and 6, and affirmed as to claims 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Bard v. Flodin

82 F.2d 424 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1936

Field v. Audley Hart Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1502, 49 F. (2d) 1012. … Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 867, 54 F. (2d) 821. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Rive other counts were involved in the decision oí the Examiner of Interferences.

In re Korum

154 F.2d 185 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

Counsel for appellants state in their brief that the statement in the board’s decision that “. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Vandiver v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 80 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers have appealed. … In the Vandiver case the decision of the board is affirmed.

Knauth v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 435 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1912

In Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329 ; T. … It follows that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.