Case law

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. 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.

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 ).

Wicks v. Friendly

55 F.2d 424 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1932

Martocello v. Kobash, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1095, 39 F. (2d) 677. … His decision was affirmed by the board of examiners in chief. This was prior to the statute which made the decision of the Board of Appeals final, and Friendly appealed to the commissioner.

Colby v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

This protest was overruled by the board, and the importers now appeal to this court for a reversal of that decision. … Justice Blatchford in the case of Merritt v. Stephani ( 108 U. S., 106 ), and is directly in point: In the opinion of this court in Schmidt v. Badger ( 107 U.

Colonial Import & Export Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

In Robertson v. Frank Bros. Co. ( 132 U. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Nelson

470 F.2d 643 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

He then correctly states the law, as laid down in Graham v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. 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.

Carr v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1921

. *2 The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed. . … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Golding Bros. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 590 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1935

Co., Inc. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 395, T. D. 46926, which involved the same merchandise and the same appraisement as is here involved. … United States v. Baldwin Universal Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 394, T. D. 44641; Downing & Co. et al. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 42873.

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!

In re Kennedy

39 F.2d 276 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

Claims 1, 2, and 3 are deemed unpatentable over either Hagstrom or Park in v-ewte [view] of any of the patents to Rohe, Mitrucker, and Freytag. … We are in accord with the views expressed by the Board of Appeals» and its decision is affirmed.

Willits & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 499 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1923

Tbe board overruled tbe protest and tbe importer appealed. … In Patton v. United States ( 159 U.

Lai Ming v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 5 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1910

The Board of Appraisers sustained the collector, and it is the determination of the board that is under review. The shoes involved are such as Chinese people often wear. … In Carter, Webster & Co. v. United States (143 Fed.

In re Schweitzer

141 F.2d 711 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1944

The Board of Appeals reversed the rejection of the examiner on- the grounds of functionality, but in all other respects affirmed his decision. … For the reasons stated the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. American Bead Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 193 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1919

The case turned below upon this latter question, the board ruling that under the decisions in Loewenthal v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. *196 Appls., 209 ; T. D. 35464) and American Bead Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Michelin Tire Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1915

And the case of Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. … The Board of General Appraisers, in the prevailing opinion, relied upon the opinion of this court in Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 310 ; T. D. 32588).

Application of Herman G. Muenchinger

317 F.2d 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1963

A fastening device comprising a threaded shank, said thread *393 being generally helical and of V-type thread form having a wider root portion and a narrower crest, the thread crest being interrupted throughout a plurality … In affirming the rejection, the board accepted the examiner’s interpretation of the Harding disclosure.

In re Hoover

102 F.2d 849 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

McCarty v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 160 U. S. 110 ; In re Krich baum, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 979, 39 F. (2d) 280; In re Stern, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1234, 40 F. (2d) 1000; In re Wait, 23 C. C. P. A. … For the foregoing reasons the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Dolor N. Adams and Donald L. Fauser

364 F.2d 473 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1966

They produce an affidavit from one who is skilled in this art, James V. Robinson, who has impressive qualifications in the field. … The preceding two paragraphs of this same paper state, however, that “In printing papers” the amount of titanium pigments is “generally from 5 to 20% of titanium dioxide * v * In paperboards of all types” they “will generally