Case law

In re Luxenberger

158 F.2d 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

Brown, 2,208,536, July 16, 1940. Bryen, 1,510,580, October 7, 1924. Honderich, 2,309,590, January 26, 1943. Spooner, 1,500,776, July 8, 1924. … Co. v. Johnson Co., 247 U. S. 426 .

Application of Gene R. Wilder

429 F.2d 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 13, 1970

The Board of Appeals sustained the rejection, upholding the examiner on all grounds with regard to claims 2, 6 and 9. … See,, e. g., In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929 , 49 CCPA 1124 (1962); In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006 , 51 CCPA 1254 (1964).

Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1919

D. 37162); Brown & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 309 ; T. D. 36871); Auffmordt & Co. et al. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 66 ; T. D. 36320); United States v. Boker & Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. … In Hall v. United States (T. D. 25340) a decision of the Board of General Appraisers was affirmed. In the decision of the board by De Vries, G.

In re Lange

644 F.2d 856 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1981

However, all limitations in the claims must be found in the reference since the claims measure the invention. 8 Continental Paper Bag Co. v. … In re Brown, 56 CCPA 1342, 412 F.2d 1407 , 162 USPQ 361 (1969). Therefore, we affirm the rejections of claims 35-41.

United States v. Morris European & American Express Co.

1 Ct. Cust. 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1911

The board based its decision upon the finding that the articles were not susceptible of decoration, and on the authority of United States v. Downing ( 201 U. S., 354 ), reached the conclusion stated. … It is in red, brown, blue. * * >- •• * if i Q. Have you ever seen any of these articles imported similar to the one under consideration that was decorated with different colors? — A. I do not remember that.

Hoza v. Colby

97 F.2d 89 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1938

Among the decisions referred to by the examiner, is the case of Browne vs. Ludlow, C. D. 1870, page 16. … Brogden et al. v. Henry, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1043, 69 F. (2d) 978; Altorfer et al. v. Haag, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 806, 74 F. (2d) 129.

McLaughlin v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 24 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1920

Barber, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: In the case of Dutton & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 460 ; T. … Browning’s Poems, two volumes. It was held that the merchandise was not entitled to free entry. T. D. 37781 (G. 'A. 8195) was another case ipyolvipg the same question heard by the Board of General Appraisers.

Feldman v. Amos and Andy

68 F.2d 746 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1934

In The Asbestone Co. v. Philip Carey Mfg. Co., 41 App. D. C. 507, the appellee sought to register the term “Asbestone” as a trademark for hard asbestos boards. … Chemical Co. v.

United States v. Downing Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 84 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1919

United States v. Crompton & Son ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 197 ; T. D. 35442). … The board is entitled to form its own conclusion- from the use, but simply to ask this witness’s opinion is not competent. Judge Brown. I will sustain the objection (grant the motion). Q. Mr.

Aetna Explosives Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 298 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1919

This claim of the importer was overruled by the decision of the board, General Appraiser Brown dissenting. The case is brought here for review in the regular way. … See Church of Holy Trinity v. United States ( 143 U. S. 457, 459 ); Heide v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 399, 403 ; T.

Mortsell v. Laurila

301 F.2d 947 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

The Laurila application was forwarded to the Patent Office on May 19, 1954, and filed on May 20, 1954 6 We do not attempt to distinguish the instant case from that of Brown, Jr. v. … See Levy v.

United States v. Bright

19 C.C.P.A. 295 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1932

Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T. D. 40026. No brief was filed by the appellee, and the Government does not deny the correctness of this proposition. This court, in Klein, Messner Co. v. … The court held that there was no valid rule of the Board of General Appraisers in force -and applicable to such a petition then being considered, inasmuch as this court, in Klein, Messner Co. v.

Altman & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

It appears from the record that at the trial before the board the importers’ counsel made the following statement relative to this protest: Mr. Brown. Here I notice protests 666619 and 674320. … See United States v. Spielmann ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 279 ; T.D. 31320), United States v. Perkins ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 323 ; T. D. 31430), Carson v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 105 ; T.

In re Sullivan

121 F.2d 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1941

D. 166; Bancel v. Meier, 1927 C. D. 302; Hartford Empire Co. v. Coe, 452 O. … A brown to black, solid bituminous substance occurring native at the Dead Sea, in Trinidad, and elsewhere (natural or native asphalt), and, also obtained as a residue from petroleum, coal tar, lignite tar, etc.

Grant & Co. Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 215 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1924

The importer’s counsel, in urging that his commodity comes within the spirit of paragraph 67, relies largely on the decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States ( 143 U. … The importation fairly falls within paragraph 5 as a chemical compound, and the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Wiggins

488 F.2d 538 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 11, 1973

The examiner’s authority for this test was the decision of this court in In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006 , 51 CCPA 1254 (1964). … The board agreed.

United States v. American Machine & Metals, Inc.

29 C.C.P.A. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1941

With respect to the case of Tinius Olsen Co. v. … Also, in the case of United States v. Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Co., 172 U.

Swan v. Thompson

80 F.2d 374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1936

Brown et al. v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37 , 23 L.Ed. 200 ; Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Cary, 147 U.S. 623 , 13 S.Ct. 472 , 37 L.Ed. 307 ; Arlington Mfg. Co. v. Celluloid Co. … (Patents) 808, 811; Braren v. Horner, 47 F.(2d) 358 , 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 971, 982; In re Abrahamsen, 68 F.(2d) 569 , 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 828, 831. We think the facts and the language used by this court in Weis v.

Scaramelli & Co. v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 490 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1934

Appls. 288 , and Celias, Inc. v. United States, T.D. 44405. … The subject *493 matter reached this court and was adjudicated in the case of Cellas, Inc. v. United States, 18 C.C.P.A.

Application of Charles D. Prater and James Wei

415 F.2d 1393 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 14, 1969

Yuan, 188 F.2d 377 , 38 CCPA 967 (1951) and Cochrane v. … Brown v. Davis, 116 U.S. 237 , 6 S.Ct. 379 , 29 L.Ed. 659 (1886); Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 272 F. 386 (6th Cir. 1921); Permutit Co. v.