Case law

General Electric Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1913

The board overruled the protest, but declined to affirm the decision of the collector upon the authority of the decision by this court in Schloss Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 459 , T. D. 33038). … Arthur v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70 ); Arthur v. Sussfield ( 96 U. S., 128 ).

Maltus v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 525 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1916

Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes (sec. 295); United States v. Kirby ( 74 U. S. 482 ); Church of Holy Trinity v. United States ( 143 U. S., 457 ); Lau Ow Bew v. United States ( 144 U. S., 47, 59 ); United States v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Liddell

69 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1934

Hall v. Stahl, 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1192, 65 F. (2d) 594, and cases therein cited. However, Gobbi is not claimed to be a complete anticipation. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Kurt Hugo Folke Lundberg

253 F.2d 244 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1958

Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195 , 109 F.2d 449 ; In re Dalzell, 166 F.2d 834 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1024; and In re Pollack, 175 F.2d 587 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1156. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is modified, being affirmed as to claims 1 to 4, inclusive, and reversed as to claim 5. Modified,

In re Brashares

74 F.2d 751 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1935

Prescott v. Padmore, declared January 19, 1929. That interference also involved an application of Bertram R. … The decision of the Board of Appéals is affirmed.

King Collar Button Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 217 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

In addition to this it appears that in King Collar Button Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 174 ; T. … This petition having been duly entered, extended the right of the importer to appeal from the board’s decision, as amended, for 60 days from the date the motion for a new trial was decided by the board. United States v.

Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 72 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1912

In Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 494 ; T. … United States v. Downing ( 207 U. S., 354 ). See, also, Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93 ; T. D. 31110).

Lewis v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 22 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1925

.— United States v. Shallus, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 168, 171, 172 , T. D. 37999. … The judgment of the board is therefore affirmed.

Nystrom v. Mancuso

64 F.2d 698 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1933

Before the Board of Appeals, the same issues seem to have again been insisted upon. … . • The decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Bernard

15 Ct. Cust. 172 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1927

In United States v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In the Matter of the Application of Jacques Rousso

222 F.2d 729 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1955

Wood & Sons v. Abelson’s, Inc., 3 Cir., 74 F.2d 895 , may possibly be so read, and something very close to it appeared in Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster, 2 Cir., 195 F. 522 ; Dominick & Haff v. Wallace & Sons Mfg. … Co., 2 Cir., 209 F. 223 ; and Mygatt v. Schaffer, 2 Cir., 218 F. 827 . When Steffens v.

Application of Peterson

189 F.2d 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1951

In holding that a result not originally disclosed or claimed cannot be used as a basis for patentability, he cited the case of Abbott v. Coe, 109 F.2d 449 , 71 App.D.C. 195 . … As we read the decision of the board, we are of opinion that no new ground of rejection was applied by it.

Blumenthal & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 176 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1924

—United States v. Haviland & Co. ( 167 Fed. 414, 419 ). The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers sitting as a classification board must therefore be affirmed.

Application of Jean Maurice Gazave

379 F.2d 973 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

In Bluestone v. … We have considered the various objections to the evidence made by the examiner and board.

United States v. Flexideal Dry Mat Co.

23 C.C.P.A. 270 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1936

United States v. Belgam Corp. et al., 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 402, T. D. 47402; United States v. Riebe, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 , T. D. 30776. … Callbeck v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, T. D. 46318.

Raymond v. Wickersham

129 F.2d 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

This award, upon appeal to the board, was affirmed, and the board’s decision was affirmed by this court in its judgment of April 8, 1940, Raymond et al. v. Wickersham, supra. … It may here be noted that in Publicker v.

Application of Burton B. Sandiford

358 F.2d 756 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1966

For the reasons above stated, we affirm the board’s decision as to claims 1-3, and 6, and reverse the board’s decision as to claims 4 and 5. Modified. 1 . Serial No. 32,550 filed May 31, 1960. 2 . 2nd Edition, Vol. … V, Part II, by Ott, Spurlin and Grafflin (1954), published by Interscience Publishers Inc., New York, N.Y.

United States v. Mitsui

17 C.C.P.A. 67 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1929

D. 34305; Carr v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 35 , T. D. 38647; United States v. Gallagher & Ascher, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 472 , T. D. 40670; and United States v. Myers & Co. et al., 5 Ct. Cust, Appls. 541, T. … In the case of United States v. Gallagher & Ascher, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 472 , T.

In re Christensen

82 F.2d 715 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1936

Attention is directed to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hollister v. Benedict, 113 U. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Carey

13 Ct. Cust. 24 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … The Board of General Appraisers in sustaining the protest was of opinion that this case was ruled by our decision in United States v. Aetna Explosives Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 298 , affirmed in 256 U. S. 402 .