Case law

Carter v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1915

In the case of Bing v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 115 ; T. … D. 32248); Fink v. United States ( 170 U. S., 584 ); United States v. Klipstein ( 123 Fed., 996 ); and United States v. Elgin National Watch Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 336 ; T. D. 34532).

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.

Application of Thomas L. Jacobs and Ronald S. Bauer

318 F.2d 743 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1963

Bullard Co. et al. v. Coe, Com’r Pats., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 369 , 147 F.2d 568 . … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . A second Miller patent 2,729,613 issued Jan. 3, 1956 was cited by the examiner and the board.

Aerco International, Inc. v. Vapor Corp.

608 F.2d 518 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1979

In addition, Aerco relies on Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 , 85 S.Ct. 308 , 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). … SCOA Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy & Cohen, Inc., 530 F.2d 953, 954-55 , 189 USPQ 15, 16 *521 (Cust. & Pat.App.1976) (interpreting 15 U.S.C. 1071); Feigelman v.

In re Dryer

162 F.2d 505 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1947

Appellant petitioned the board to reconsider its decision. The board reconsidered the decision but declined to make any change therein. … Travis v. Baker et al., 30 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1271, 137 F. (2d) 109, 58 USPQ 558 ; In re Beach, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 815, 152 F. (2d) 981, 68 USPQ 196 .

Sellstedt v. Ishimaru

543 F.2d 1328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1976

Grasselli v. Dewing, 534 F.2d 306 , 189 USPQ 637 (Cust. & Pat.App.1976); Mikus v. Wachtel, 504 F.2d 1150 , 183 USPQ 752 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974); Blicharz v. Hays, 496 F.2d 603 , 181 USPQ 712 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974). … I would reverse the board’s decision.

Dirkes v. Potts

90 F.2d 120 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1937

Another of the series is the case' of Duerr et al. v. Potts (Suit No. 3710), decided by this court May 29, 1937, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1198, 90 F. (2d) 117. … The decision of the Board of Appeals accordingly is affirmed.

The Fleetwood Company, Assignee of Cosmetic Manufacturing Co. v. The Mitchum Company

323 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 17, 1964

Weiss Noodle Company v. Golden Cracknel and Specialty Company [ 290 F.2d 845 , 48 CCPA 1004], 129 USPQ 411 (CCPA, 1961). … We agree with the board that opposer should be free to continue its use of “fade” in a descriptive sense.

Fougera v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

We held, however, in Mills & Gibb v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 31 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Cogswell

48 F.2d 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Learned counsel for appellant has cited us to certain decisions, of the Supreme Court of the United States, to wit: Rubber Co. v. Goodyear (9 Wall) 76 U. S. 788 , and Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals being, in our opinion, •without error is affirmed.

In re Hopkins

37 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

Applicant had applied for a patent which involved appeal No. 2128, involving a cone-type of loud speaker, mounted on a circular type of sound board. … In Knapp v. Will and Baumer Co., 273 F. R. 380, 290 O.

Krebs v. Melicharek

97 F.2d 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

See Angell v. Morin, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1018, 69 F. (2d) 646; In re Demarest, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 904, 38 F. (2d) 895; In re McDonald, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1099, 47 F. (2d) 802. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Schechter

205 F.2d 185 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1953

The board in its decision has implicitly concurred in this holding. … See also Parker v. Marzall, 92 F.Supp. 736 , a decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia.

United States v. McLaughlin

13 Ct. Cust. 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

In the case of Arthur v. … The judgment of the board is affirmed.

Pacific Creosoting Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 312 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1911

HUNT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: These are appeals from a decision of the Board of United States 'General Appraisers which affirmed the action of the collector of *313 customs at the subport of Seattle, Wash … In Martindale v. Cadwalader (42 Fed.

In re Oelrich

666 F.2d 578 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1981

This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in application serial No. 452,050, filed March 18, 1974, entitled … In Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 26 CCPA 937, 940, 102 F.2d 212, 214 , 40 USPQ 665, 667 (1939), the court said: Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.

McCormick v. Plumstead

94 F.2d 999 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1938

White v. Syvertsen, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 897, 46 F. (2d) 364. … Hunter v. Stikman, 13 App. D. C. 214. * * * This brings us to a consideration of the testimony in the case.

United States v. Penn. Commercial Corp. of America

15 Ct. Cust. 206 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1927

United States v. Penn. … (Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261 , T.

Kennedy v. Slade

47 F.2d 383 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1931

D., 452, and Meryenthaler v. Scudder, 1897 C. D., 724). … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.