Case law

In re Watson

175 F.2d 451 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

The disclosure of the patent is hereinafter more specifically described in the decision of the board with respect to the board’s rej ection of claims IB and 14. … of the claimed triangular pyramids, the claim does not in that, respect meet the requirement of the statute as to definiteness, nor does it come within the decision, upon which appellant relies, in the case of Rosenberg v.

Application of William F. Billingsley

279 F.2d 689 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1960

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the Primary Examiner’s rejection of claims 49 and 50 of appellant’s application for a patent on a vehicle tire. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Columbia Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 281 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1922

The protest was submitted upon evidence to the Board of General Appraisers, and was overruled as to both of its claims. This appeal was taken from that decision. … D. 38356) and United States v. Reid & Co., id. 85 ; T. D. 38357).

Balbach Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 84 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

See also United States v. Proctor Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 44 ; T. D. 34091); Thomsen & Co. v. United States (Ib., 69; T. D. 34100); United States v. Bayersdorfer & Co. (Ib., 99; T. D. 34134); United States v. … Our conclusion therefore is that the decision of the board overruling the protest should be affirmed.

Lange Soap Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 440 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1912

The appeal from the decision of the Board of General Appraisers having been decided advérsely to the Government by this court (United States v. Sheldon & Co., 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485 ; T. … We think the board’s decision in terms shows that the case was not disposed of by the board upon the ground of nonappearance.

Application of Oscar Shuffman

311 F.2d 822 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

The verb definition is “• — v. t.; * * * GLUING * * * To cause to stick or hold fast, with or as with glue. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 352 (1960).

John V. Cake & Son, Inc. v. United States

47 C.C.P.A. 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1960

, solid fiber shoe board and all counter board, and pulpboard in rolls for use in the manufacture of wall board), not plate finished, supercalendered or friction calendered, laminated by means of an adhesive substance, coated … Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust.

American Express Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

The board overruled the protest, and the importers have appealed to this court. … , or wood pulp, or the wood used in the manufacture of such paper, board, or wood pulp, or the wood pulp used in-the manufacture of such paper or board.

Application of Alexander R. Surrey

370 F.2d 349 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1966

Specifically, the claim is broader than the disclosure * * * This rejection was affirmed by the board. … Paint Co. v. Firestone, 6 Cir., 117 F.2d 927 ). The board formulated its own statement of the rejection which, however, does not seem to me to be quite the same as the examiner’s rejection.

Application of Vincent J. Frilette and Paul B. Weisz

412 F.2d 269 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1969

In Pierce v. … We find more in point in In re Siu, 222 F.2d 267 , 42 CCPA 864, 105 USPQ 428 (1955); Hays v.

United States v. Wiebusch

7 Ct. Cust. 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

The issues of fact and law are the same as presented in United States v. *365 Irwin & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 360 ; T. D. 36906), this day decided by the court. … For the reasons and upon the principles and authorities therein cited the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Feldmeier v. Mojonnier

91 F.2d 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

In its decision, the Board of Appeals held that the doctrine of suppression and concealment, as applied in the Mason v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Peabody

3 Ct. Cust. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

They contend that the ad valorem duties should have been assessed upon the value of the contents only, and that the decision of the board o that effect should be affirmed. In the case of United States v. … In Meyers v. Shurtleff (23 Fed.

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 Earle

102 F.2d 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1939

With respect to such questions the general rule is stated in the case of Hicks v. … In the case of Rosemary Mfg 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.

Preston v. White

97 F.2d 160 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1938

Carty v. Kellogg, 7 App. D. C. 542. … See Grabowsky v. Gallaher, 39 App. D. C. 548.

In Re Bolongaro

62 F.2d 1059 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1933

S.) 665; Library Bureau v. Macey Co. (C. C. A.) 148 F. 380 ; Hocke v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 122 F. 467 ; Berry v. Wynkoop, etc. (C. C. A.) 84 F. 646 ; United States Credit System Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

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.

United States v. Fred. Gretsch Mfg. Co.

26 C.C.P.A. 267 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1938

In Legg v. … We said in Lichtenstein v.