Case law

Ayres, Bridges & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 87 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 23, 1917

In United States v. Heckman ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 272 ; T. … The case of United States v.

In re Varga

511 F.2d 1175 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1975

It is predicated on the decision of the Supreme Court in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. … The case of Abington Textile Machinery Works v.

Columbia Industries, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co.

497 F.2d 1358 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1974

Tiffany and Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 459 F.2d 527 , 59 CCPA 1063 (1972); Tiffany and Co. v. Tiffany Tile Corp., 345 F.2d 214 , 52 CCPA 1396 (1965); Tiffany and Co. v. Boston Club, Inc., 231 F.Supp. 836 (D. … Appendix, 188 N.E. 30 (1933); and Tiffany and Co. v.

Application of Ernie L. Launder and Chester C. Hosmer

222 F.2d 371 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1955

Gleason v. Dosch, 39 F.2d 687 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1012. … This is especially so in this case since it appears from the record that applicants never presented the foregoing argument to the examiner or to the board.

Weigel v. Hobbs

87 F.2d 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1937

Even if the counts are to be limited to such wire screens, the board was of opinion that the small jets of steam passing-through the V-shaped openings in the corrugated metal would strike the interposed wire screens in the … We find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals, and it is affirmed. Garrett, Judge, dissents.

O'Donnell v. Hartt

75 F.2d 195 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1935

Agawam Oo. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583 -602; Christie v. Seybold, 6 U. S. App. 544, 5 C. C. A. 33 , and 55 Fed. 69 . * * * [Italics ours.] … See also Watson v. Belfield et al., 26 Fed. 536 ; Fenner v. Blake, 30 App. D. C. 507; Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. D. C. 264; and Collar Co. v.

In re Peiler

48 F.2d 405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 191 Fed. 350 ; Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac, etc., 37 F. (2d) 830; Traitel Marble Co. v. Hungerford Brass & Coffer Co., 22 F. (2d) 259, and Thomson-Houston Elec. Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. May Department Stores Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1928

The above-quoted excerpts from Morse v. … The board held that there was no presumption of correctness in the collector’s finding, for the reason that witnesses testified in great numbers, and cited Morse v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 553 , T. D. 41432.

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.

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 Burk

74 F.2d 547 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1935

G. 981 , or Chipman v. Reade, 16 U. S. Pat. Q. 2, to support such broad classes of compounds as amines, or phenols. This is-pointed out specifically in paper No. 6. … The decision of the Board of .Appeals is affirmed. LenROot, J., concurs in the conclusion.

United States v. Central Westrumite Co.

1 Ct. Cust. 400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1911

At the hearing before the Board of General Appraisers both sides conceded that the article was improperly assessed by the collector. … The case is quite similar in this particular to that of Fink v. United States ( 170 U. S., 584 ).

Davis v. Maclachlan

81 F.2d 763 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1936

After agreeing with the construction of said count 1 of interference No. 61,395, it held that it was bound by the authority of the case of DeaJcin v. Schwartz, 44 App. D. … In this respect we agree with the board. The board, however, did not discuss the appellant’s second reason why the early hose produced by appellee does not respond to the terms of the count.

Nelson v. Wolf

97 F.2d 632 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543 , cited by the *1293 Examiner of Interferences, is a leading case upon tbis point. The case of General Electric Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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.

Da Rocha v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 78 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 2, 1938

. *80 The cause was submitted to the trial court on the record in the case-of Baljour Guthrie & Co., Ltd. v. … Gennert (Inc.) v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 12, T. D. 43973; United States v. J. L. Galef, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 180, T. D. 44377; United States v. Belgam Corp. et al., 22 C. C. P. A.

United States v. Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 240 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1918

In the case of Beuttell v. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Mudd v. Schoen

54 F.2d 959 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1932

Humiston v. Voorhees, 57 App. D. C. 344, 23 F. (2d) 765; Stern et al. v. Schroeder et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 690, 36 F. (2d) 518; Slattery v. Larner, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 725, 36 F. (2d) 298; Deibel v. … (Patents) 1134, 40 F. (2d) 999; Myers v. Spencer, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 956, 46 F. (2d) 716; Hartog v. Long, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 993, 47 F. (2d) 365; Moore v. Greene, 18 C. C. P. A.

Bragg v. Besler

56 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

(Patents) 1134, 40 F. (2d) 999; Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 867, 54 F. (2d) 821. … Field v. Audley Hart Stowe, 18 C. C. P. A.

In re Bond

77 F.2d 511 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1935

See Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. … . • Holding the views herein expressed, we deem it unnecessary to discuss other matters referred to by the Board of Appeals, and by counsel for appellant. The decision is affirmed.