Case law

United States v. Veith

5 Ct. Cust. 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

In United States v. … In Blumenthal v.

Tweel & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 73 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1919

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest-. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Reeves

71 F.2d 195 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

Appellant has cited and quoted from a great many decisions relating to the combination of old parts and old elements, including Edison Electric Light Co. v. … It is, therefore, contended, under Timolat v.

Application of William J. Krodel and Norman Hackerman

223 F.2d 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1955

See Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U.S. 245 , 48 S.Ct. 474 , 72 L.Ed. 868 . … Furthermore, conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty of a claim is objectionable, General Electric Co. v.

In re Hodgson

96 F.2d 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1938

Co. v. Coe, 64 App. D. C. 317, 78 F. (2d) 199. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affm^med.

In re Dann

47 F.2d 356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1931

The board found that features (a) and (c) were disclosed in Eiekelberg. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed as to claims 4, 5, 13,14, and 16. As to the others it is affirmed.

In re Ernst

150 F.2d 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1945

In support of this contention, appellant cites the rule of law as stated in Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company, 185 U. S. 403 . … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Bliven v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 205 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers overruled these protests on the ground that they were insufficient. We think the board did not err. It will be noted, as announced in T. … Homer v. Collector ( 1 Wall., 486 ); Reiche v. Smythe (13 id., 162); Smythe v. Fiske (23 id., 374); Movius v. Arthur ( 95 U. S., 144 ). In Chung Yune v. Kelly (14 Fed.

Morimura Bros. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 111 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1917

In Brodie v. United States ( 135 Fed., 914 ) and Spero v. … In Hirshbach & Smith v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 124 ; T.

In re Lawson

39 F.2d 667 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

The examiner allowed the process claims and rejected the others, which decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. … American Wood-Paper Co. v. Fibre Dis. Co., 90 U. S. 566 . Cohn v. U. S. Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366, 377 ; In Re Decker, 36 App. D. C. 104.

Field v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 15, 1915

In Wertheimer v. … In Trefousse v. United States ( 144 Fed., 708 ) the court expressly refused to approve the rule laid down by the board in T.

In re Breslow

616 F.2d 516 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1980

Young v. Bullitt, 233 F.2d 347, 43 CCPA 932, 110 USPQ 55 (1956); Guinot v. Hull, 204 F.2d 281 , 40 CCPA 982, 97 USPQ 441 (1953). Recovery is only for the purpose of showing existence and is not a separate requirement. … The board, in both Nelson and Dubsky, while discussing the facts of those cases, found them factually distinguishable and reversed the examiner in each.

In Re Rice

132 F.2d 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1942

In re Reeves, 62 F.2d 199 , 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 767; In re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910 , 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1134; Conover v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. 144 , 99 F.2d 377 . … In affirming this ground of rejection by the Patent Office we said: “In oral argument and in brief counsel has urged that under the case of Cincinnati Traction Company v.

Application of Booge

179 F.2d 986 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

The examiner, with the board affirming, rejected claim 1 on that basis. … board, under the rule of In re Boyce, 144 F.2d 896 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 718.

In re Unger

104 F.2d 386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1939

White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 51 ; In re Ora Krichbawm, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 979, 39 F. (2d) 280; In re Irving L. Stern, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1234, 40 F. (2d) 1000; In re Wait, 23 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Skinner v. Pacak

452 F.2d 1390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1972

Instead,, they apparently rely on Sockman v. … Liebscher v. Boothroyd, 46 CCPA 701, 258 F. 948 , 119 USPQ 133 (1958); and Rajchman v. Lockhart, 52 CCPA 853, 339 F. 2d 233 , 144 USPQ 34 (1964). See Martin v.

In re Rossi

241 F.2d 726 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

Abbott et al. v. Coe, 71 App. D. C. 195, 109 F. 2d 449 , 43 USPQ 267 ; In re Dalzell et al., 35 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1024, 166 F. 2d 834 , 77 USPQ 164 ; In re Pollack et al., 36 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Jackson, J., Retired, recalled to participate herein in place of Cole, J., absent because of illness.

Application of Robert Cowan Shuman and Francis John Meinhardt

361 F.2d 1008 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 16, 1966

The teachings of Bolvin relied on by the examiner and the board relate to the construction of the writing tip which is spherical in shape and “slightly corrugated.” … Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 . We think the solicitor advocates too stringent a standard as to admissibility of evidence to prove the secondary *1013 considerations stated above.

Bernard v. White

88 F.2d 741 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1937

Hartog v. Elmer G. Long et al, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 993, 41 F. (2d) 365; William E. Moore v. Albert E. Greene, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1317, 48 F. (2d) 960; Henry Dreyfus v. Leon Lilienfeld, 18 C. C. P. A. … Mudd v. Otto A. Schoen, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 840, 54 F. (2d) 959. In the opinion of the court, the party White cannot make the count, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

Application of James B. Boyer

363 F.2d 455 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1966

In brief, his argument is predicated on various indicia of unobviousness, as recently discussed by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). … The board said: The rejection “with or without” Harris thus becomes cumulative and we prefer to consider combinations including Harris.