Case law

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

7 Ct. Cust. 312 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

Carter v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 253 ; T. … The board construed the former decision of this court aright, and we agree with the holding that the words, “ by whatever name known” in clause 3 of the above-quoted paragraph from United States v.

In re Becket

88 F.2d 684 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1937

(Patents) 703, 44 F. (2d) 878; Wemple and Daesen v. Pierce and Anderson, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1164, 75 F. (2d) 998. Claims 15, 16, 17-, and -23 are method claims. … The decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office is affirmed.

United States v. Great Pacific Co.

23 C.C.P.A. 319 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1936

Tausend et al. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 323 , T. D. 42490. … As a matter of caution, in United States v.

United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 410 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1912

Hedden v. Richard ( 149 U. S., 346, 349 ). … Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U. S., 252, 257 ); Newman v. Arthur ( 109 U. S., 132, 138 ).

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.

Todd Shipyard Corp. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1921

We think this case is governed by United States v. Reid ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 85 ; T. D. 38357) and United States v. Carlin ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 83 ; T. D 38356). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

U. S. Department of Energy v. Szulinski

673 F.2d 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1982

Based on these findings and the precedent of Fitch v. … Consequently, the patentability of the claimed invention over prior art was not considered by the board, and is not before us. See, e.g., Kahn v.

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.

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.

Kasarjian v. Paulson

97 F.2d 474 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

That the device which is reduced to practice must embody the invention defined in the count; see Henderson v. Gilpin, 1913 C. D. 1. … The decision of the Board of Appeals 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.

In re Molyneaux

35 F.2d 68 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568 ; Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U. S. 274 . … Burt Co. v. Ritchie, 251 Fed. 909 -18; Rosell v. Allen, 16 App. D. C. 559; Millett v. Allen, 27 App. D. C. 70; In re Briggs, 9 App. D. C. 478. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Claremont Polychemical Corp. v. Atlantic Powdered Metals, Inc.

480 F.2d 877 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1973

Claremont Polychemical Corp. v. Atlantic Powdered Metals, Inc., 470 F.2d 636 (CCPA 1972). … The goods here are apparently identical to those in the prior case. 4 The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

In re Backhouse

220 F.2d 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1955

Thompson et al. v. Boisselier et al., 114 U. S. 1 . … Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112 ; In re Cady, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1208, 111 F. (2d) 899, 45 USPQ 576 .

United States v. Paar

14 Ct. Cust. 301 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1926

Ishimitsu Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 186 , T, D. 38963; Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. The United States, 207 U. S. 556 . … The judgment of the Board of United States General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court), is 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.

In Re Schwartz

195 F.2d 327 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1952

In re Cady, 111 F.2d 899 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1208, quoting from Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U.S. 112 , 26 L.Ed. 93 . … For the reasons hereinbefore set out, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of John B. Riddle, Arndt B. Bergh and Charles O. Forge

438 F.2d 618 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1971

OPINION We agree with the examiner and the board that the claimed method is obvious in view of Smith. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 532,577, filet!

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. -• .