Case law

Morgan v. Drake

36 F.2d 511 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1929

This we think is the indisputable meaning of the statute, and this interpretation follows the doctrine of Parker & Whipple Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Allan A. Hayatian

395 F.2d 1010 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1968

In evaluating the obviousness of an invention, we are concerned with facts, Graham v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. . Serial No. 267,747 filed March 25, 1963. .

United States v. Stone & Downer Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 99 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1921

V. … V.

In re Mason

81 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1937

Upon appeal to the Board of Appeals, the action of the examiner was affirmed, the grounds of the affirmance by the board being substantially the same as those relied upon by the examiner. … As is pointed out by the board, there is nothing about the structure of applicants which is new.

In re C. W. Marks Shoe Co.

131 F.2d 437 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 26, 1942

In the case of Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. Adelphi Shirt Co., 159 Ms. D. 778, 31 U. S. P. … See The American Tobacco Co. v. Wix, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 835, 838, 839, 62 F. (2d) 835.

Merck & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protests and the importers appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Andreas

164 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1947

See Lovell Manufacturing Company v. Cary, 147 U. S. 623, 634 ; DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U. S. 664, 682 . … General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co. et al., 326 U. S. 242, 249 .

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.

Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. v. Pharmaton, S. A., D.B.A. Pharmaton A. G. And Pharmaton Ltd.

345 F.2d 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 20, 1965

Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., 326 F.2d 786 , 51 CCPA 946; R. Neumann & Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc., 326 F.2d 799 , 51 CCPA 934; Polaroid Corp. v. … In Martell & Co. v.

Ufer v. Williams

79 F.2d 892 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1935

The board accepted the rule of equivalents set forth in the case of Read Holliday & Sons, Ltd., v. Schulze-Berge et al. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

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.

United States v. Grossfeld

1 Ct. Cust. 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1911

In United States v. Legg (105 Fed. … This contention was sustained by the Board of General Appraisers, who rested their decision upon the supposed authority of Hartranft v. Oliver ( 125 U. S., 525 ), and that case is relied upon here.

In re Covey

63 F.2d 982 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1933

See Potts v. Creager et al., 155 U.S. 597 ; Lakewood Engineering Co. v. Walker, 23 F. (2d) 623. … For the reasons herein stated, the appeal is dismissed as to process claims 16 and 17, and in all other respects the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Gilman v. Klein

101 F.2d 668 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1939

The Examiner of Interferences, paraphasing the language in the case of Bourne v. Hill, 27 App. D. … Bourne v. Hill, 123 O. G. 1284 .

Temple v. Littlehale

125 F.2d 730 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1942

Upon appeal the Board of Appeals reversed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Meadows

2 Ct. Cust. 143 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1911

In its opinion the court there in substance said that it appeared in Seeberger v. Schlesinger ( 152 U. S., 581 ) that the shells which were a part of the shell opera glasses under consideration in Seeberger v. … The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.