Case law

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.

United States v. Meadows

23 C.C.P.A. 276 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1936

The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals agreed with Judge Brown in the case of Meadows, Wye & Co. vs. United States, T. … The trial court then comments upon the former case on this issue: Meadows, Wye & Co. v. United States, 63 Treas. Dec. 1293 , Abstract *278 23080, affirmed in Meadows, Wye & Co. et al. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A.

Application of William L. Tenney, Paul A. Frank and Scoville E. Knox

254 F.2d 619 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 23, 1958

Alexander Milburn Co. v. … The import of the board’s decision is that the microfilm per se, by virtue of the O.T.S. notice of availability, is the printed publication relied upon; the board’s opinion expressly rejects possible reliance on the O.T.S

Comey v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

United States, supra, prompt a different decision and a reversal of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in this case. … While the decision of the board is here reversed, it is due to that tribunal to note that it followed the-obiter expression in the majority opinion in Comey & Johnson Co. v.

Anthony F. D'Amico v. Fuji Koike

347 F.2d 867 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

Specifically, Walker v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. WORLEY, C. J., concurs in the result.

In re Cogswell

48 F.2d 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Learned counsel for appellant has cited us to certain decisions, of the Supreme Court of the United States, to wit: Rubber Co. v. Goodyear (9 Wall) 76 U. S. 788 , and Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals being, in our opinion, •without error is affirmed.

Bache v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 414 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

Harris v. Harris (82 N. Y. S., 568, 83 App. Div., 123 ); Hunt v. Hunt ( 72 N. Y., 217, 242-243 ); Cheely v. Clayton ( 110 U. S., 701, 709 ); Anderson v. Watt ( 138 U. S., 694, 706 ); Atherton v. Atherton ( 181 U. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Frederick C. Tarbox

411 F.2d 1029 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1969

The board affirmed the examiner, stating: It appears to us that the patent to Haberland et al. does show a construction wherein the operation of the valve means V and C thereof conforms to the requirements of the claims. … We are satisifed the board was correct in concluding that the Haberland patent discloses a mower cutter combination in which the operation of the valves V and C conform to the requirements of the claims.

Moscahlades Bros. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1915

The board overruled the protests, remarking: The importers’ counsel points out in his brief that the issue here is the same as that suggested by the Court of Customs Appeals in United States v. Adams Express Co. ( 2 Ct. … In United States v.

Application of Schechter

205 F.2d 185 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1953

The board in its decision has implicitly concurred in this holding. … See also Parker v. Marzall, 92 F.Supp. 736 , a decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia.

In Re Laughlin

48 F.2d 921 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

Fassett v. Ewart Mfg. Co., 62 F. 404 , 10 C. C. A. 441 ; Otis Elevator Co. v. Portland Co., 127 F. 557 , 62 C. C. A. 339 '; Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros. Typewriter Co. (C. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Gelnovatch

595 F.2d 32 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 8, 1979

such a process falls within the purview of Benson, supra, [Gottschalk v. … v.

United States v. Buss & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 5 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1917

See Goldberg et al. v. United States ( 61 Fed., 91 ), Barber, v. Schell ( 107 U. S., 617 ). … See Buss & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 192 ; T. D. 35441).

Farmer v. Schweyer

68 F.2d 961 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1934

In the case of Courson v. … For the reasons stated, Ave find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals in this interference.

Application of Helene Curtis Industries, Inc

305 F.2d 492 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 15, 1962

It is also suggested that the reasoning of this court in Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp. of America, 266 F.2d 793 , 46 C.C.P.A. 868 , has some bearing here. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. MARTIN, Judge, concurs in result only.

In re Lippold

176 F.2d 932 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 ; In re Griswold, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 799, 152 F. (2d) 1014, 68 USPQ 176 ; In re Stattmann, 32 C. C. P. A. … While it is true that in the decision of the Board of Appeals claim 9 was included among others, as being .rejected on the prior art, such statement by the board is clearly an inadvertence for the reason that the board specifically

United States v. Woolworth Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 194 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

See also Lorsch & Co. et al. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93 ; T. D. 34132). In the subsequent case, American Bead Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 18 ; T. … And this view has since been *198 adopted by the board. See Abstract 32185 (T. D. 33963). Use generally is a controlling consideration. See Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 100 ; T. D. 31115).

In re Nomiya

509 F.2d 566 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1975

Logically, the instant situation is one step removed from the circumstances illustrated by Eibel Process Co. v. … Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966).

Shaw v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 426 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1911

Field v. Clark ( 143 U. S., 649 ). … The Board of General Appraisers, overruled the protests.

Chamberlain v. Kleist

112 F.2d 846 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1940

McCabe v. Cramblet, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1220, 65 F. (2d) 459; Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 907, 46 F. (2d) 570; Brogden v. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988. … In the case of Writer v. Kiwad, 20 C. C. P. A.