Case law

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.

In re Frevert

119 F.2d 437 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1941

Parker and Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Company, 123 U. S. 87, 100, 101 ; Myles Morgan v. Alden M. Drake et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 729, 36 F. (2d) 511; In re Whittelsey, 23 C. C. P. A. … Accordingly, tbe decision of tbe Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re Watson

44 F.2d 868 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

C. 590; Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537 -557, 18 S. Ct. 707 , 42 L. Ed. 1136 ; Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68 -77, 15 S. Ct. 745 , 39 L. Ed. 899 ; Carnegie Steel Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha

11 Ct. Cust. 464 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 17, 1923

D. 23667); Dennison v. United States ( 72 Fed. 258 -260); De Jonge v. Magone ( 159 U. S. 562 ); Hartranft v. Wiegmann ( 121 U. S. 609 -615); United-States v. Dudley ( 174 U. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

Vandegrift v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 334 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1931

Gulbenkian v. United States, 186 Fed. 133 ; Passavant v. United States, 169 U. S. 16, 21 ; Muser v. Magone, 155 U. S. 240 ; Wolff v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 181 , T. D. 31217. … The comment made in Wolff v.

United States v. Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 239 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

Marriott v. Brune (9 How. [50 U. S.], 619.) This has been the consistent and often adjudged interpretation of “appraised value” by the Board of General Appraisers in several opinions of conspicuous merit. See J. H. … The judgment of the board is reversed.

Bergdorf & Goodman Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 11 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 26, 1918

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … There is no evidence at all in the record that the goAvns sought to be exported were the identical models imported, and therein this case differs from the case of Louise & Co. v.

Herrmann v. Otken

201 F.2d 909 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1953

Brady v. Atlantic Works, 107 U.S. 192 , 2 S.Ct. 225 , 27 L.Ed. 438 ; Barnet v. Wied, 195 F.2d 311 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 882, 892; Gallagher v. Hastings, 21 App.D.C. 88 . … Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 155 U.S. 286 , 15 S.Ct. 118 , 39 L.Ed. 153 ; Langevin v. Nicolson, 110 F.2d 687 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1022.

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.

Application of John G. Miller

311 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

We have considered Plax Corporation v. Elmer E. Mills Corporation, D. C., 106 F.Supp. 399 ; on appeal 7 Cir., 204 F.2d 302 , but do not find it controlling in the instant case. … In view of the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the board. Affirmed. SMITH, J., sat but did not participate in decision. 1 .

United States v. Kimpton

1 Ct. Cust. 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1911

No question was made before the board or in this court that the ink was not properly assessed. … The decision of the board was based upon what it considered was the controlling effect of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Kimpton v . United States (171 Fed.

United States v. Louis Wolf & Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 310 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1929

Appellee further contends that the issues in this case are controlled by the decision of United States v. Field & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 543 , T. … These cases, as well as the more recent case of Wanamaker v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. 251, T.

In Re Ebert

57 F.2d 356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

De Forest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U. S. 664 , 51 S. Ct. 563 , 75 L. Ed. 1339 . See also In re Modine, 57 F.(2d) 355 , 39 C. C. P. A. -, decided concurrently herewith. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Univis Lens Co.

20 C.C.P.A. 375 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1933

The Government further relies upon the case of United States v. … It will be observed that the phrase “molded or pressed” was not contained in the paragraph, and therefore the said case of United States v. Robinson has no application to the case at bar.

Hull v. Smith

109 F.2d 228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1940

Williams v. Handschiegl, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1116, 48 F. (2d) 395; Doherty v. Dubbs, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 801, 813, 68 F. (2d) 373, 376. … Accordingly, we hold that all the proof adduced justified the board in granting priority to the •appellee in Interference No. 66,017, and, therefore, the decision of the Board of Appeals will be affirmed.

Pflueger v. Jordan

76 F.2d 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1935

Berman v. South Bend Bait Co., 71 F. (2d) 575. … Galamb v. Gilmer, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 918, 68 F. (2d) 967. This we have done.

United States v. Weber

3 Ct. Cust. 19 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1912

A. 6221 (T.D. 26888), the board in an elaborate and exceedingly carefully considered opinion, which was subsequently affirmed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Ceballos v. … That it has not been declared by statute is made clear by the very authority quoted by the Board of General Appraisers and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Ceballos v.

Bright Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 206 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

The board sustained the collector’s classification. … Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 159 ; T. D. 31677).

Raymond v. Wickersham

110 F.2d 863 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1940

The Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences. … Cooper v. Hubbell, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 790, 53 F. (2d) 1072; Derby et al. v. Whitworth, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 791, 62 F. (2d) 368.

In re Stirling

47 F.2d 809 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

In the decision of the Board of Appeals there is a quotation from the brief which appellant filed before the board, describing the process by which the design was produced. … We agree with counsel' for appellant that the cases of Harmon Paper Co. v. Prager et al., 286 Fed. 267 , and Harmon Paper Co. v.