Case law

In re O'Neill

95 F.2d 333 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1938

It discloses a heater formed from a straight wire bent back upon itself to make it substantially “V” shaped and the patent states that the wire may be coated with insulation. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Reuter

670 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1981

This appeal is from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) which affirmed the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3-11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Everett 1 in view … The Board Opinion In affirming the rejections of all claims, the board stated: In our opinion, the teachings of Berck-muller would have made it obvious to provide equal line lengths to arch the canopy of the prior Everett

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).

Parodi, Erminio & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1918

The present question is more nearly ruled by the general principles announced in United States v. Shing ( 173 Fed., 844 ), and Strohmeyer v. United States ( 178 Fed., 268 ). See also Tokstad-Burger Co. v. … The decision of the board is accordingly affirmed.

Levy & Levis Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 89 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1914

United States v. Wing Wo Chong ( 98 Fed., 602, 603 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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.

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 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.

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.

Application of Emil Schlittler and Andreia Uffer

234 F.2d 882 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 21, 1956

Cas. page 435 , No. 11,645, 1 Story 590 , 599; Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120 , 21 L.Ed. 821 ; Stitt v. Eastern R. Co., C.C., 22 F. 649, 650 ; Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. Nelson, 7 Cir., 203 F. 484 ; and Buser v. … Co. v. East Side Mfg. Co., D.C., 16 F.2d 1008 ; and Western States Mach. Co. v. S. S.

Knoop v. Woodward

69 F.2d 558 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1934

It is therefore urged that Knoop has suppressed and concealed the invention and is not entitled to an award of priority under the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, 1898 C.D. 510, and Hambeuchen v. Schorger, 1926, C.D. 204. … Rudolph Wietzel v. Burritt Samuel Lacy, 17, C.C.P.A. (Patents) 943, 39 F. (2d) 672; Hathaway v. Field, 48 App.D.C. 369 ; Donald A. Miller v. Eber J. Hayman, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 848, 46 F. (2d) 188.

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 .

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.

Hummel Chemical Co. v. United States

29 C.C.P.A. 178 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1941

In the United States crude brown wool grease is also known as degras. … In the case of Koechl v. United States, 3 Ct. Oust. Appls. 316, T.

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.

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.

In re Gaertner

604 F.2d 1348 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 2, 1979

The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirmed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 185 of application No. 599,574 filed July 28, 1975, and entitled “Oxazolidinone Phosphonates.” We affirm. … We consider incorrect the statements in Control Systems Research, Inc. v. Aerotech, Inc., 429 F.Supp. 914, 917 , 195 USPQ 59, 62 (W.D. Pa. 1977) and Beckman Instruments, Inc. v.

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.

Application of Max J. Kalm

378 F.2d 959 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1967

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 1 as anticipated by certain prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e). … I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Ladd, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 246 , 328 F.2d 547 .

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.