Case law

Application of George v. Eltgroth

419 F.2d 918 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 8, 1970

In affirming the examiner’s rejections, the board failed to make specific mention of ground (3) supra. … Particularly apropos to the present application is the following statement by the Supreme Court in Brenner v. Manson, 833 OG 1349; 148 USPQ 689 : “ * * * But a patent is not a hunting license.

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.

Application of Sidney A. Durfee, Bennie L. Culwell and Raymond C. Barnes

412 F.2d 878 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 17, 1969

Much is also made of the board placing its affirmance on the obviousness point and ignoring the latter one. We see no need to quibble over such fine quillets. … The bending of the seat supports beginning at the top of the legs into horizontal touching U-shaped seat supports is so obvious from the Modernline publication as refined by the V shaped support of Jakobsen and the V shaped

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.

Fenton v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 529 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1911

In the Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States ( 171 U. … In United States v. Dudley ( 174 U.

In re Geisler

121 F.2d 537 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 2, 1941

Nelson v. Felsing, 1909 C. D, 358. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

In re Stovall

63 F.2d 985 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1933

Lenroot, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming a decision of the examiner, rejecting for lack of invention over … Derby v. Thompson, 146 U. S. 476 ; Millett et al. v. Allen, Commissioner of Patents, 27 App. D. C. 70, 1906 C. D. 752.” In the case of Derby v.

Application of Campbell

212 F.2d 606 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1954

In support of this position the examiner cited the Commissioner’s Decisions in the cases of Ex Parte Waterman, 1902 C.D. 235 and McArthur v. Gilbert, 1904 C.D. 245. … In the case of Dieterich v.

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.

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.

In re Endacott

58 F.2d 444 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

It must not be overlooked that in the famous case of Potts v. Creager, 155 U. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Scott

76 F.2d 136 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1935

Counsel for appellant relies strongly upon Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope, 210 Fed. 477 , as supporting his claims herein. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Stone v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 46 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1911

For instance, in Veil v. United States (113 Fed. … See also McCoy v. Hedden (38 Fed. Rep., 89, and T.

Hawley v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 45 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

In Fisk v. Arthur ( 103 U. … See Swan v. Arthur, Fisk v. Arthur, and Arthur’s Executors v. Butterfield, supra.

In re Brandt

64 F.2d 693 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1933

This decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals, and the appellant has brought the case here. Claims 18 and 24 are thought to be typical of the rejected claims, and are as follows: 18. … Co. v. Sheridan et al., 149 Fed. 208 . In our opinion the claims were properly rejected on the grounds ■stated by the Board of Appeals, and its decision is therefore affirmed.