Case law

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.

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.

United States v. Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences

15 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

This court, in Sheldon & Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 42 , reviewed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in the case last above cited. … The court, speaking through Barber, J., reviewed the authorities generally and affirmed the decision of the board.

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.

In re Beplate

77 F.2d 506 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1935

Braren v. George Horner, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 971, 47 F. (2d) 358, and cases there cited. In re Alfred, W. Abrahamsen, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1056, 56 F. (2d) 871. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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 .

Denike v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. American Express Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 483 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers entered judgment sustaining the protest, and from that judgment the Government appeals. … —Magone v. Heller ( 150 U. S. 70 ); United States v. Ducommun Hardware Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 353 ; T. D. 36904).

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.

Sessions v. Schmidt

63 F.2d 448 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1933

Harris v. Henry, 63 F.(2d) 129 , 29 C. C. P. A. —. … The decision. of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. •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.

Application of Constantin Chilowsky

306 F.2d 908 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 20, 1962

The asserted legal basis of the first approach is a phrase out of Webster Loom Co. v. … Higgins et al., 105 U.S. 580, 586 , 26 L.Ed. 1177 , from which case appellant quotes the “principle” which he thinks should apply, which he calls the “Webster v.

Cooper v. Hubbell

53 F.2d 1072 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

In the case of Lewis v. Strom, 52 App. D. … Foster v. Antisdel, 14 App. D. C. 552.

In re Prinzler

97 F.2d 102 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1938

Co. v. Coe, 185 Fed. 522 . It is also true that, ordinarily, there is no invention in making parts integral instead of riveting or otherwise fastening them together. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. … The appeal as to claim 2-is dismissed, and as to the remaining claims the decision of the Board of Appeals 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.

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.

In re Carroll

601 F.2d 1184 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1979

This is an appeal from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4, all of the claims in application … Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 , 86 S.Ct. 684, 703 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1965). Many inventions may seem obvious to everyone after they have been made.

In re Febrey

135 F.2d 751 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

The board agreed with this holding of the examiner. … While it is true as noted in Barrett v.

In re Langer

503 F.2d 1380 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 3, 1974

Compare * * Hoover et al. v. Eckerd’s Cut Rate Medical [Medicine] Co., Inc., 53 F.2d 215 [D.Del.1931], affirmed 63 F.2d 813 [3rd Cir. 1933]. … See In re Anthony, supra, and Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92 , 52 CCPA 1048 (1965).

Central Commercial Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 16, 1921

—Paterson’s Fishery Laws (pp. 9-25); Fennings v. Lord Grenville (1 Taunton); Littledale v. Scaith (1 Taunton [footnote] 243); Hogarth v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.