Case law

Akers v. Papst

113 F.2d 136 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 8, 1940

Greene et al. v. Beidler (C. C. A., 2d Circuit), 58 F. (2d) 207. In the case of King v. Young, 26 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of George H. Schippereit

342 F.2d 471 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1965

The Board of Appeals sustained the rejection on this basis and appellant has appealed. … We think this is an erroneous reading of Northrup by both the examiner and the board.

Steinreich v. Coca Cola Co.

67 F.2d 498 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1933

In the case of Coca-Cola Co. v. … Lever Brothers Co. v. Riodela Chemical Co., 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1272, 41 F. (2d) 408; The Procter & Gamble Co. v. J. L. Prescott Co., 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1433, 49 F. (2d) 959; The Celotex Co. v. Bronston Bros. & Co.

Feldmeier v. Mojonnier

97 F.2d 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

In its decision, the Board of Appeals held that the doctrine of suppression and concealment, as applied in the Mason v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed. Appeal No. 3951.

Gowen v. Arnold

37 F.2d 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1930

Gowen v. William F. Hendry, suit No. 2216, interference No. 50818; and Robert F. Gowen and James L. Bradford v. Harold D. Arnold and William C. White, suit No. 2147. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

In re Fischer

113 F.2d 492 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 8, 1940

Claims 3 and 5 directed to the apparatus and ■ *1415 claim 11 directed to the method of production of sheet material were allowed by the board. … (Patents) 1246, 84 F. (2d) 206; McCarty v. Lehigh Railroad Co., 160 U. S. 110 . The Birum et al. patent discloses a. safety outlet for preventing-overfeeding of the material.

In re Creveling

61 F.2d 862 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1932

(Patents) 1134, 40 F. (2d) 999; Field v. Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1502, 49 F. (2d) 1072; Sweetland v. Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 53 F. (2d) 709; Mudd v. Schoen, 19 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons assigned, it is thought the rejection of said claims 25 and 26 was not in error, and the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office is affirmed.

Kuchar v. Armington

133 F.2d 944 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

See Bryson v. Clarke, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 719, 92 F. (2d) 720; Malm et al. v. Schneider, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 783, 101 F. (2d) 201. … Writer v. Kiwad, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 869, 63 F. (2d) 259. Conversely, expressly defined limitations in counts may not be disregarded. Harris v. Henry, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 883, 63 F. (2d) 120; Bryson v.

United States v. George J. Tarr Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1928

The case of United States v. Geo. S. Bush & Co. (Inc.) et al., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 406 , T. D. 43131, decided concurrently herewith, and the case of United States v. Wilfred Schade & Co. 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 366 , T. … The exhibit which is before us is a bottle containing a small amount of brown, mucilaginous, pasty substance with a very disagreeable odor.

Robinson v. Heising

55 F.2d 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1932

Appeal from the decisión of the board was then taken to this court. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Prutton

120 F.2d 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1941

Sir: Interference No. 69,595, Prutton et al. v. Carter v. Johnson v. Smith v. Miller et al. v. Sullivan et al., is reformed by the substitution of the application of Carl E. Prutton and Albert K. Smith, Ser. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Borne Scrymser Co. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 475 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1935

The imported product, at a temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit, is a heavy, oily material, brown in color, and flows easily but slowly. … D. 31237, or the cotton linters in United States v. Salomon, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 246 , T. D. 31277.

United States v. Sabin

13 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1925

In this case the court affirmed the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers sustaining the reappraisement of the general appraiser *162 who found the net entered and appraised value to be correct. United States v. … In its decision the board simply called attention to the fact that in another case the board had reached a similar conclusion and that the opinion of that board was in harmony with the facts'm the case at bar.

Sharp & Dohme v. Parke, Davis & Co.

37 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1930

In support of this proposition it cites Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Getz Bros. & Co., 49 App. D. C. 55, 258 F. 527 ; Goodall Worsted Co. v. Palm Knitting Co., 56 App. *962 D. … To the same effect are Hood Rubber Co. v. Needham Tire Co., 48 App. D. C. 227, and the Standard Brewery Co. v. Interboro Brewing Co., 44 App. D.

The Seven-Up Company v. Bubble Up Corporation

312 F.2d 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1963

Townley Clothes, Inc. v. … Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra, and Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v.

United States v. Rice & Fielding, Inc.

12 Ct. Cust. 78 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1923

The importer protested and the Board of General Appraisers, one member dissenting, sustained the protest. … In this connection see Smillie & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 199 ; T. D. 38966), and Wilkes-Barre Lace Mfg. Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 519 ; T. D. 39664).

Shultz v. Dunham

67 F.2d 501 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1933

(Patents) 725, 36 F. (2d) 298; Podlesak v. McInnerney, 26 App. D.C. 399 and other cases. Counts in an interference should be given as broad a meaning as their terminology will reasonably permit. Slattery v. … Martin v. Friendly, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1181, 58 F. (2d) 421; Oldroyd v. Morgan, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1111, 57 F. (2d) 358.

Rietmann Pilcer, Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 150 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1926

In Brennan v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Glass v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

The board held, arid we agree, that in order to come within this designation the merchandise *431 must be substantially wholly of cotton and that goods such, as these wherein a substantial portion thereof is of flax are not … Swan v. Arthur ( 103 U. S., 597 ); Barber v. Schell ( 107 U. S., 617 ); Lord & Taylor v. United States ( 178 Fed., 270 ); Robertson v. Edelhoff et al. ( 91 Fed., 642 ); United States v. Burne ( 4 Ct. Cust.

Sessions v. Schmidt

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

Harris v. Henry, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 883, 63 F. (2d) 120. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.