Case law

United States v. Ignaz Strauss & Co.

37 C.C.P.A. 32 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 7, 1949

leather with two long brown fur tails 3 inches long from the upper shoulders thereof and two pearly eyes pasted on black leather discs; the fifth consists of three representations of leather covered books bound together … United States v. Doragon Co. et al., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 182 , T. D. 41051.

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 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).

United States v. State Forwarding & Shipping Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 287 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

United States v. Field & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 543 ; United States v. Strauss & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 167 , T. D. 41025. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed,

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.

Keveney v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

The Board of General Appraisers held that it came under the latter designation, and the importer appeals. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. De Vkies, Judge, having participated in the decision of the board, did not sit.

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.

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 Leslie D. Moore

429 F.2d 985 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 3, 1970

* * * by the expediency of incrementally increasing the temperature of the reaction throughout the process, which increase is determined by the application of the following equation: where C = conversion level in mole % V … The Board of Appeals accepted every one of the examiner’s positions.

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.

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 Drisch

189 F.2d 994 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1951

[Quoting Sinclair Refining Co. v. Coe, 1943, C.D. 109.]” … We find no manifest error in the concurring decisions of the Patent Office and the decision of the Board of Appeals is accordingly affirmed. Affirmed.

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.

Servo Corporation of America v. Kelsey-Hayes Company

289 F.2d 957 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1961

The board found that appellant had established no proprietary interest in “Servo,” and that concurrent use of the mark by the parties would not be likely to cause confusion of purchasers. … The issues here closely parallel those in a companion appeal, Servo Corp. of America v.

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.

Lunham v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 220 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1911

S., 46 -49, 50); United States v. Dominici (78 Fed. Rep., 334); Eimer v. United States (87 Fed. Rep., 202); United States v. Brewer (92 Fed. Rep., 341-342); Borden v. United States (132 Fed. Rep., 205, 206). … The result is that the decision of the board is affirmed.

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.