Case law

Application of Donald E. Dailey and Anton F. Eilers

357 F.2d 669 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 24, 1966

See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 86 S.Ct. 684 . 40 The decision of the board is affirmed. 41 Affirmed. … Causten Browne that "If it [the invention] is so simple that a judge can understand it, then it is not invention." It is here the caution stated in Allen v.

United States v. Conkey

6 Ct. Cust. 487 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1916

United States v. Dominici ( 78 Fed., 334 , l. c. 337-338); United States v. Brewer ( 92 Fed., 343 , l. c. 344). They must be regulative and not prohibitive. United States v. Morris ( 3 Ct. Cust. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

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.

MacMichael v. Newnam

83 F.2d 699 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1936

Fageol v. Midboe, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1117, 56 F. (2d) 867. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Gillam

37 F.2d 959 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1930

Henifen v. Armitage, 117 Fed. 845 ; Cimiotti v. American, 120 Fed. 672 ; In re Ek, 57 App. D. C. 203, 19 Fed. (2d) 677; DeLore v. St. Louis Lith Co., 26 Fed. (2d) 864. … Ritter v. Krakau, 24 App. D. C. 271. The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

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.

United States v. Nordic Baking & Importing Co.

47 C.C.P.A. 78 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 26, 1960

The discs of dough are “shoveled” onto boards, which boards are placed in a “steam box” or “proof box” wherein the dough is exposed to wet steam for 5 to 10 minutes. … Pollack Weeks & Co. v. United States, 45 Treas. Dec. 907 , Abstract 46940 (1924) (Swedish health bread); Swedish Produce Co. v. United States, 46 Treas. Dec. 649 , Abstract 47815 (1924), and Swedish Produce Co. v.

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.

Ryerson v. McCurley

88 F.2d 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1937

Sweetland v. Don Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 53 F. (2d) 709, and Shultz v. Dunham, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 706, 67 F. (2d) 501. … The decision of the Board of Appeals in 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.

Bahnsen v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1917

Identical merchandise was before the court for classification under the tariff act of 1909 in United States v. Ringk & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 353 ; T. D. 32908). … The court approved a finding of the board that the articles' were “belting leather” and not “manufactures of leather,” as therein claimed by the collector.

Tower & Sons v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 489 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1923

Wheat, wheat flour, semolina, and other wheat products, not specially provided for in this section: * * * The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … See Williams v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 277 ; T. D. 37538). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed as to protest 934350 and affirmed as to protests 934351 and 933461. Modified.

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.

Vreeland v. Miller

112 F.2d 829 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1940

The invention was defined by the Examiner of Interferences and the Board of Appeals in substantially the same language, the board stating: The subject matter in issue relates to a radio receiver including a signal selector … We are in accord with the conclusion reached by the Board of Appeals, and its decision is affirmed.

Shawnee Milling Company v. Sidney Wanzer & Sons, Inc., D.B.A. Wanzer's

390 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1968

See Cream Wipt Foods, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 278 F.2d 521 , 47 CCPA 968; and cases cited therein. … Roddenbery Co. v. Kalich, 158 F.2d 289 , 34 CCPA 745.

Bough v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

The board sustained the classification of the collector and the importer appeals. … In United States v.

United States v. Hogan

12 Ct. Cust. 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1924

They are Hadden v. the Collector ( 72 U. S. 107 ); Sturges v. the Collector ( 79 U. S. 19 ); Gautier v. Arthur ( 104 U. S. 345 ); and Russell v. Williams ( 106 U. S. 623 ). … The judgment of the board is therefore affirmed. Barber, Judge, dissents.

Application of Schutt

210 F.2d 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1954

Appellant in support of his contention for the allowance of the appealed claims ' cites the case of Webster Loom Co. v. … Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S: 45, 56, 43 S.Ct. 322 , 67 L.Ed.:523. -• .

Togasaki v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 463 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1925

On appeal to the Board of General Appraisers, that'board sustained the classification of the collector, and rendered judgment accordingly, from which judgment importer appeals. In Ishimitsu v. United States (11 Ct. … Therefore, the • importation was properly classified and the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

De Jonghe v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

Reiche v. Smythe ( 13 Wall., 162, 164-165 ). … See Homer v. Collector ( 1 Wall., 486, 490 ).