Case law

In re Metzger

45 F.2d 918 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1931

Frost Co. v. Cohn, 119 Fed. 505 ; Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U. S. 139 ; Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U. S. 428 ; In re Meinecke, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 752, decided December 1, 1930. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Arbuckle Bros. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 105 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1912

In United States v. Jahn (65 Fed. … We think, as was held by the board in T.

In re Bode

550 F.2d 656 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1977

See Sussman v. Cooper, 537 F.2d 531, 534 , 190 USPQ 418, 421 (Cust. & Pat.App.1976). … See Suss-man v. Cooper, supra.

Kostick v. Winter

162 F.2d 219 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1947

Such limitations can not be ignored (Rule 130, last paragraph; Wyland v. Simons 491 O. G. 234 , 1938 O. D. 194; 25 C. C. P. A. 780, 93 F. (2) 44; Lawson v. Davis 554 O. G. 687 , 1942 C. D. 661, 29 C. C. P. … Dawson v. Martin, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1155, 111 F. (2d) 300, 45 USPQ 332 ; Vietti et al. v. Dow et al., 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1156, 120 F. (2d) 360, 49 USPQ 716 .

Application of John Pavlecka

317 F.2d 932 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1963

IDENTICAL PANEL UNITS 1 and V IN AN OVERLAPPING RELATIONSHIP USEFUL AS A SUBCOMBINATION IN A HOLLOW WALL. B. … Under such circumstances, we are obliged to reverse the decision of the board. Reversed. 1 . Serial No. 324,903, filed December 9,1952. 2 .

United States v. Malhami

7 Ct. Cust. 175 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

The rosaries in question are wanting in all of the essential particulars required by the Court of Customs Appeals in the case of United States v. Gallagher & Ascher (T. … In accordance with the foregoing views the decision of the board is reversed. '

In re Hunter

167 F.2d 1006 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1948

The board approved both rejections. … Yewdall testified further, in effect, that he was familiar with the Hill patent which was at one time involved in litigation (See Matrix Contrast Corporation et al. v.

In re Baum

123 F.2d 662 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1941

In support of the latter contention, counsel call attention to the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in the case of Artcraft Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Janette v. Folds

38 F.2d 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1930

On appeal, after a like exhaustive examination and discussion of the testimony, the Board of Appeals came to the same conclusion. These decisions, concurring, will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong. Beidler v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Bach

48 F.2d 970 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1931

Pengilly v. Copeland, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1143, 40 F. (2d) 995; Beidler v. Caps, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 703, 36 F. (2d). 122. … After carefully examining the references and considering the-argument of counsel, we can not, under the rule above cited, hold, that the Board of Appeals erred in its decision, and it is affirmed..

In re Burnham

53 F.2d 534 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1931

In Thompson et al. v. Boisselier et al., 114 U. … Because of lack of invention on the part of applicant over the prior art cited, we feel that the decision of the Board of Appeals was correct and same is affirmed.

Almasi v. Strauss

589 F.2d 523 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1979

art but rather, *526 whether or not in view of pertinent prior art the substance of the count makes obvious . the substance of the patent claim, Nerwin v. … The board therefore viewed the omitted limitations as immaterial, and awarded priority to Strauss. Issues ■ The issue is whether there is an interference in fact. 4 In Brailsford v.

Moscahlades Bros. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 633 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

The hearings upon the various protests were consolidated by the-Board of General Appraisers, and, after a hearing, the protests were-overruled, the board holding that the imported goods were dutiable,, “if not directly, then … United States v. Moscahlades Bros., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 46 . In the recent case of United States v. Conkey, 12 Ct. Cust.

Application of Francis W. Crawford

250 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 13, 1957

In re Dalzell, 166 F.2d 834 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1024; Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195 , 109 F.2d 449 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed. JACKSON, J., retired, recalled to participate.

Application of Earl E. Folkenroth

275 F.2d 732 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 8, 1960

Claims 17-23 were appealed to the board and it allowed claim 23, affirming the examiner as to the rest. On this appeal appellant urges the allow-ability only of claims 18-22. … The decisions cited by the Patent Office are In re Stroedter, 68 F.2d 741 , 21 CCPA 843; Annernen v. Penn, 69 F.2d 653 , 21 CCPA 988; and In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198 , 34 CCPA 701.

Castricone v. McCabe

111 F.2d 653 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1940

The Board of Appeals affirmed this holding by the examiner. … (Patents) 1134, 49 F. (2d) 999; Pelzer v. Weaver, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1232, 97 F. (2d) 166; Dowell v. Doman, 51 App. D. C. 375, 279 Fed. 1013 . The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Spatafora v. Zaiger

69 F.2d 118 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 5, 1934

Parker v. Craft et al., 49 App. D.C. 88 , 258 Fed. 988 ; Cosper v. Gold, 34 App. D.C. 194 . See Shellaberger v. Schnabel, 10 App. D.C. 145 ; Headley et al. v. Bridges, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1331, 48 F. (2d) 938. … Appellee Young argues, citing Armitage v.

Price-Pfister Brass Mfg. Co. v. Milwaukee Faucets, Inc.

311 F.2d 817 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

SMITH, Judge. ' This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 131 U.S.P.Q. 492 , sustaining appellee’s opposition instituted under Section 13 of the Trademark Act of 1946 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1063 … circumstances vary to such an extent in trademark decisions as to render prior decisions of limited value, we think the facts and circumstances of this case warrant repetition here of our observations in Wincharger Corporation v.

Application of Alexander R. Surrey and George Y. Lesher

319 F.2d 233 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

The board affirmed the rejection of claims 10-14 “for the reasons set forth” by this court in In re Larsen, 292 F.2d 531 , 49 CCPA 711. … the unobvious local anesthetic action possessed by the final products (carbamates) made directly from the intermediates (chloroformates) is sufficient to prove patentability according to the standard set forth in Parker v.

Knight v. King

82 F.2d 817 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1936

The board says: Since the testimony which. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.