Case law

Walter Munch, Jr. v. Richard H. Peterson

420 F.2d 758 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1970

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to Peterson as to the single count in interference No. 94,547. … See Smith v. Wehn, 50 CCPA 1544, 318 F.2d 325 (1963).

Walker v. Altorfer

111 F.2d 164 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1940

In Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 155 U. … Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U. S. 481, 489 . In Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E.

Smith & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 40 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1913

The board sustained the action of the collector and the im- ' porters bring the case here for review. We have considered the subject of herrings in numerous cases, beginning with United States v. Rosenstein ( 1 Ct. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Miller

197 F.2d 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1952

Richards v. Chase Elevator Company, 159 U.S. 477 , 16 S.Ct. 53 , 40 L.Ed. 225 ; Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U.S. 1 , 8 S.Ct. 342 , 31 L.Ed. 325 ; In re Anthony, 147 F.2d 695 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 868; Hardinge Bros. v. … Blanchard v. Ooms, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 400 , 153 F.2d 651 ; certiorari denied, 329 U.S. 715 , 67 S.Ct. 46 , 91 L.Ed. 621 .

Atlantic Aluminum & Metal Distributors, Inc. v. United States

47 C.C.P.A. 88 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1960

United States v. Mercantil Distribuidora, S.A., Joseph. H. Brown, 43 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 617. *90 2) When lexicons have proved to be inconclusive, the courts have looted to testimony in the record, United States v. … United States v. Mercantil Distribuidora. S.A.. Joseph H. Brown, supra. Evidence as to common meaning is advisory only in determining tbe question, United States v. Mercantil Distribuidora, S.A., Joseph 3. Brown, supra.

Application of Theodore Eskild and George E. Houghton

387 F.2d 987 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1968

The Board of Appeals agreed, as do we. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. KIRKPATRICK, J., concurs in the result. . Serial No. 297,554, filed July 25, 1963. .

In re Hotte

475 F.2d 644 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1973

Nine references were relied upon by the examiner and board in various alternative combinations. … As indicated by the board, “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. See Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465 , 52 C.C.P.A. 920 (1964).

In re Monks

588 F.2d 308 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1978

This is an appeal from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (d) of claims 14-25 of application serial No. 561,291 … See Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States, 81 Ct.Cl. 671 , 27 USPQ 234 (1935), modified, 320 U.S. 1 , 63 S.Ct. 1893 , 87 L.Ed. 1731 , 57 USPQ 471 (1943).

United States v. Gordon

6 Ct. Cust. 410 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1915

United States v. Swedish Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223 ; T. D. 33437); United States v. Wyman ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264 ; T. D. 33485); United States v. Proctor ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 44 ; T. D. 34091); Thompson v. … D. 34100); United States v. Nozaki Bros. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286 ; T. D. 34471); United States v. Rice ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T. D. 34472); United States v. Brodie ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 186 ; T. D. 35438).

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.

Emons v. McDanal

112 F.2d 844 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1940

Marshall Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495; Chamberlain v. Kleist, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1300, 112 F. (2d) 846, decided concurrently, herewith. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Fox

46 F.2d 573 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1931

That portion of the X-shaped cavity forming a V, and lying on the outside of the packing, is filled with a soft rubber ring. … The Board of Appeals rejected claim 1, on reference to Huhn, 1019857, November 25, 1913.

In re Arendt

74 F.2d 765 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1935

Marshall and Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495; Oldroyd v. Morgan, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1111, 57 F. (2d) 358; Andrew is v. Nilson, 27 App. D. C. 451; Ryder v. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Guthman v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 286 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

We held in United States v. Guthman, Solomons & Co., supra (T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

Writer v. Kiwad

63 F.2d 259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 20, 1933

On appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed,

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

In re Dawe

53 F.2d 543 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1931

In Braren v. Horner, 18 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is modified, being affirmed as to claim 7 and 'reversed as to claims 5 and 6.

Fersing v. Fast

121 F.2d 531 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 2, 1941

This broad principle may be gleaned from the language in Gedge v. Cromwell, 19 App. D. C. 192, although the facts in that case were wholly different from those in the case at bar. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Stern v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Importers rely much upon the decision of this court in Wanamaker v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Tristram Allan Taylor, John James MacFarlane Norman Stephenson and Power Jets (Research and Development) Limited v. Henry A. Ambrose

332 F.2d 567 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1964

As appellants correctly point out, patentability of a count to an applicant is not a matter which is ancillary to the issue of priority, e. g., Loukomsky v. … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences is reversed. Reversed.