Case law

Application of Robert W. Bodley

426 F.2d 390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1970

The invention is readily understood by reading sole independent claim 18 in conjunction with Figs. 1 and 2 of the drawings, reproduced below: L/s V£ ' | l! … The decision of the board is, therefore, affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 334.752 filed December 31,1963.

Rank Cintel Limited v. Kay Lab

288 F.2d 938 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1961

The board was of the opinion that the respective product's were different; that there was nothing to show that they moved in the same trade channels or were bought by the same class of purchasers. … Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Hofman, 258 F.2d 953 , 46 CCPA 708.

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.

United States v. Vandegrift

4 Ct. Cust. 226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

In the case of Gartner, Sons & Co. v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Reuter

651 F.2d 751 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1981

This appeal is from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) which affirmed the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3-11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Everett 1 in view … The Board Opinion In affirming the rejections of all claims, the board stated: In our opinion, the teachings of Berck-muller would have made it obvious to provide equal line lengths to arch the canopy of the prior Everett

In re Mayhew

527 F.2d 1229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 15, 1976

In affirming these rejections, the board added nothing to the examiner’s reasoning which requires notice. … Appellant has taught how to achieve both condi-v tions by employing a cooling zone at the point where the strip leaves the bath.

In re de Seversky

474 F.2d 671 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 8, 1973

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1 and 10 of appellant’s application serial No. 723,810, filed April 24, 1968, entitled … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. See the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in de Seversky v.

Tower & Sons v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1919

The board answered this question in the negative, and the importers appeal. The paragraph reads as follows: 391. … The board referred to its own decision in T. D. 36976 (G. A. 8020), which relates to a mill for grinding meal from corn to be fed to poultry and other live stock.

Application of Robert E. Rice and Francis A. Russo, Jr

342 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1965

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 7 and 8 of appellants’ patent application 1 entitled “Method for Burn Therapy.” … The method of treating burned areas on the human body, comprising the steps of applying an aqueous suspension consisting essentially of tetraethylene glycol, methyl cellulose and v.'

Woelm v. Hasselquist

62 F.2d 365 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1933

Field v. Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1431, 49 F. (2d) 840; Sweetland v. Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 53 F. (2d) 709. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Salem

553 F.2d 676 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1977

Liebscher v. … Accordingly, the decision of the board is reversed. REVERSED. .

Martin v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1911

Upon this evidence, which was all there was in the case, the board held that it was “not convinced” that the protestan! was not a resident of the United States when he arrived in New York. … In United States v. One Pearl Necklace (111 Fed.

In re Meinecke

44 F.2d 674 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419 ; Union Biscuit Co. v. Peters, 125 F. 601 , and authorities therein cited. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Owens v. Sponable

69 F.2d 650 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1934

In Fritz v. Hawn, 17 C.C.P.A. … The cases of Brauenstein v. Holmes, Heubel v. Bernard, and Laughlin v. Burry, supra, are to the same effect.

Doap Leun Hong Co. v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 313 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1932

Ev., pt. 3, ch. 1; Fremont v. United States, 17 How. 542, 557 ; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 42 ; State v. Wagner, 61 Maine 178 .) (Italics ours.) … J. 981, Ham v. State, 156 Ala. 645 , 47 S. 126; Whitney v. Jasper Land Co., 119 Ala. 497 , 24 S. 259; Wabash R. Co. v. Campbell, 219 Ill. 312 , 76 N. E. 346 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Neff, 25 Ind. A. 107, 56 N.

Hirsch v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 82 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 18, 1913

The protest was heard by the Board of General Appraisers andl was overruled. From that decision the importers now appeal. … Victor v. United States ( 128 Fed., 472 ); Eckstein v. United States ( 140 Fed., 94 ). In this view of the case the court finds no error in the decision of the board, and the same is therefore affirmed.

James Robert Bethell and David James Hadley v. Theodore Augur Koch, Ivan Maxwell Robinson and William Lee Wiley

427 F.2d 1372 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 2, 1970

thereof and that it is a ‘promoter’ in the catalyst,” even the broader language “consisting essentially of” (emphasis added) would exclude the presence of a promoter in the catalyst citing National Distillers & Chemical Corp. v. … As was succinctly stated in Judge Almond’s dissenting opinion in McCutchen v.

Lang v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 362 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1914

In United States v. Leigh & Butler ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304 ; T. … The decision of the board will be reversed.

Colthoff v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1930

A rusk as commonly understood is a light, sweetened bread, biscuit, or cake that has been crisped and browned in an oven. (See “Rusk,” Standard Dictionary.) … See also United States v. Dunlop *392 & Ward, supra, and United States v. Menzel & Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 16 , T. D. 37844.

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.