Case law

In re Donohue

632 F.2d 123 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 11, 1980

This is an appeal from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining *124 the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1 and 5-7 of application serial … In re LeGrice, 49 CCPA 1124, 1145, 301 F.2d 929, 944 , 133 USPQ 365 , 378 *126 (1962), In re Brown, 51 CCPA 1254, 1259, 329 F.2d 1006, 1011 , 141 USPQ 245 , 249 (1964).

Application of John R. Willingham

282 F.2d 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1960

In the opinion of the board, claim 12 included “the heart of the invention recited in claims 3 and 6.” … Justice Brown in Topliff v. Topliff, 1891, 145 U.

United States v. Snow's United States Sample Express Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 351 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 13, 1918

Cadwalader ( 89 Fed., 963 ); Smith v. United States ( 93 Fed., 194 ). In Brown & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 309 ; T. … The judgment of the board should be affirmed-.

Pinkerton v. Stahly

144 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1944

Lamp v. Randall and Bates, 33 App. D. C. 430, 1909 O. G. 455 , 146 O. G. 255 ; Beidler v. Caps and Leininger, 17 C. C. P. A. 703, 1930 O. D. 78, 392 O. G. 241 , 36 F. (2d) 122, 4 U. S. P. Q. 58; Brown v. … In attacking the sufficiency of appellees’ disclosure, appellants rely upon McCormick, v. Malherbe, 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 838, 116 F. (2d) 520, 48 USPQ 106 , and Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A.

Strype v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 153 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1935

In support of its position that “any of the foregoing” does not relate to “Bristol board”, found in a later paragraph, the cases of Woolworth v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 120 , T. D. 31119; Tilge v. … D. 31662; United States v. Matagrin, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 309 , T. D. 31406; and Haas Bros. et al. v. United States, supra, in which case is cited Arnold v. United States, 147 U. S. 494 , are relied upon. Brown v.

Application of Japikse

181 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1950

74-422, “507 Mechanical Movements” — Figs. 118— pages 32 and 33 — Copy in Division 14, Pub-lised 1908 by Brown & Seward, 261 Broadway, N.Y.C. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Incorporated

427 F.2d 823 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1970

To the women who use “Miss Clairol” hair preparations to change their natural brown hair color to ash blonde or to return their now natural gray hair to something approaching its original color, it could be said that the … See Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., infra; Golden Gate Salami Co. v. Gulf States Paper Corp., 332 F.2d 184 , 51 CCPA 1391 (1964) ; Roger & Gallet v.

United States v. Tribuno

13 Ct. Cust. 101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

a small quantity of dark sirup of deeper brown on the top. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Application of Jimmie L. Huitt and Bruce B. McGlothlin

375 F.2d 484 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

Considering the claimed subject matter in view of the facts of record, I find the board’s conclusion of obviousness to be unsupported by the necessary facts, Graham v. … Brown v.

Kuttroff-Pickhardt & Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 381 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1927

Stewart Brown, United States General Appraiser, too high on certain coal tar products (Benzo Red), imported by us in the Noordam from Germany, we have to request that the same may be re-reappraised by the Board of General … In Weehawken Wharf Co. v. Knickerbocker C.

In re Payne

606 F.2d 303 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 13, 1979

In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006, 1011 , 51 CCPA 1254, 1259, 141 USPQ 245 , 249 (1964). An invention is not “possessed” absent some known or obvious way to make it. … The board’s statement that Tables III through V of the Durden affidavit were “of no evidentiary value for purposes of rebutting the . . . prima facie case of obviousness,” (emphasis the board’s) must be interpreted as indicating

Guardian Light Company v. Guardian Electric Manufacturing Co.

292 F.2d 542 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 14, 1961

Browne, Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C., Geo. H. Wallace, James B. Kinzer and Wallace, Kinzer & Dorn, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. A. W. Molinare, Chicago, Ill., and Spencer B. … I would therefore reverse the board.

Shaw v. Levy

58 F.2d 844 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1932

Fox, another of his witnesses, in the Brown Marx Building. Dr. … Any extended discussion is unnecessary, in view of the detailed discussion of the facts by the Board of Appeals.

Arden v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 42 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1925

Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 ; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 173 ; May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496 -601; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489 . … Assuredly, therefore, neither the Board of General Appraisers nor this court has any jurisdiction of controversies arising out of the collection of excise or internal revenue taxes. Christie Street Commission Co. v.

In re Torkelson

121 F.2d 556 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1941

In his appeal to the board on the renewed application, appellant .alleged error on the part of the examiner “in rejecting claims, 3, 6, and 7 on the grounds of estoppel,” but we fail to find any discussion by the board of … Brown, 1,306,575, June 10, 1919. Roesch, 1,351,130, August 31, 1920. Boyce, 1,647,171, November 1, 1927. Loughrin, 1,671,432, May 29, 1928. Menk, 1,701,957, February 12, 1929. Walker, 1,829,771, November 3, 1931.

Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1919

D. 37162); Brown & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 309 ; T. D. 36871); Auffmordt & Co. et al. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 66 ; T. D. 36320); United States v. Boker & Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. … In Hall v. United States (T. D. 25340) a decision of the Board of General Appraisers was affirmed. In the decision of the board by De Vries, G.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Crown 400 Corporation

290 F.2d 595 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1961

The United States Time Corp. v. Tennenbaum, 267 F.2d 327 , 46 C.C.P.A. 895 . 12 The decision appealed from is reversed. 13 Reversed. … We would, therefore, affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

United States v. Morris European & American Express Co.

1 Ct. Cust. 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1911

The board based its decision upon the finding that the articles were not susceptible of decoration, and on the authority of United States v. Downing ( 201 U. S., 354 ), reached the conclusion stated. … It is in red, brown, blue. * * >- •• * if i Q. Have you ever seen any of these articles imported similar to the one under consideration that was decorated with different colors? — A. I do not remember that.

H. Galland & Co. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1929

of General Appraisers, upon a petition filed and supported by satisfactory evidence under such rules as the board may prescribe, that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement … The court below, in an opinion by McClelland, Justice (Brown, Justice, dissenting), held that the importer had failed to establish by satisfactory evidence that the entry of the merchandise at values less-than the final appraised

In re Mays

175 F.2d 570 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

See Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 372 O. G. 517 , 277 U. S. 245 ; De Lamar v. De Lamar Min. Co., Stat. 117 F. 240 ; Farrell v. Boston & M. Consol. Copper & Silver Min. Co., 121 F. 841 ; Baker v. F. A. … Co., 146 F. 744 ; James Brown et al. v. Enoch Piper, 109 U. S. 99 ; Lovell Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Alanson Cary et al., 147 U.