Case law

Gregg v. Coakwell

175 F.2d 575 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

Wilson et al. v. Sherts et al., 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 914, 924, 81 F. (2d) 755, 28 USPQ 379 ; Brown, Jr. v. Barton, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 889, 894, 102 F. (2d) 193, 41 USPQ 99 . The count reads: 1. … Yates v. Huson, 8 App. D. C. 93; Griffin v. Swenson, 15 App. D. C. 135; O’Connell v. Schmidt, 27 App. D. C. 77; Woods v. Poor, 29 App. D. C. 397, 403.

Teter v. Kearby

169 F.2d 808 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1948

In this connection, appellant cites in his brief the cases of *817 Landay v. United States, 6 Cir., 108 F.2d 698 and Johnson et al. v. United States, 6 Cir., 89 F.2d 913 . The same contention was made before the board. … Brown, Jr., v. Barton, 102 F.2d 193 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 889.

In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

671 F.2d 1332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1982

An oral hearing was held before the board. … In Luminous Unit Co. v.

Germania Importing Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 219 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1917

The color of the cement is much darker than that of the oxidized oil, tbe amber-yellow of the latter having changed into a mahogany-brown in the nixing pan. … The board denied this application and overruled the protests of the importer. While we do not approve the reasoning of the board, we are unable to say that the evidence warranted any other conclusion.

In re Arkley

455 F.2d 586 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1972

In re LeGrice, 49 CCPA 1124, 1131, 301 F. 2d 929, 933 , 133 USPQ 365 , 369 (1962), citing Curtis on Patents, 3d ed., Sec. 378 and Seymore v. Osborne, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 516, 555 (1870). … See also In re Brown, 51 CCPA 1254, 329 F. 2d 1006 , 141 USPQ 245 (1964); In re Shep pard, 52 CCPA 859, 339 F. 2d 238 , 144 USPQ 42 (1964); In re Bird, 52 CCPA 1290, 344 F. 2d 979 , 145 USPQ 418 (1965); In re Borst, 52 CCPA

American Bead Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 18 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

Brown v. Piper ( 91 U. S., 37, 42 ); Jones v. United States ( 137 U. S., 202, 216 ); Nelson v. Gushing ( 2 Cush., 519 , 532, 533); Page v. Fawcet (1 Leon., 242); Taylor on Evidence (8th ed., secs. 16, 21). … The decisive principle obviously adopted by the board is that all “ornaments worn for personal adornment only” are jewelry. This court in United States v.

United States v. Mills

5 Ct. Cust. 534 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 23, 1915

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protests, and the Government appealed. . … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. International Graphite & Electrode Corp.

25 C.C.P.A. 74 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1937

Counsel, further contend that precedent for the course taken by Judge Brown, is found in the case of C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States, reap-praisement 54607-A, Reap. … Co. v. Keating, 116 Fed. 561, 565 .

R. J. Godwin's Sons v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1934

See United States v. Waterhouse ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 353 ; T. D. 31452) and cases cited and United States v. Ranlett ( 172 U. S., 133 ). … D. 13338, supra; Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. et al., supra; see also Midland Linseed Products Co. v. United States, supra; United States v. Alex. Murphy & Co., supra; United States v. Wanamaker, supra.

Application of Walker Manufacturing Company

359 F.2d 474 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1966

. * * * In Browns Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. … See Polaroid Corp. v. Anken Chemical & Film Corp., 343 F.2d 771 , 52 CCPA 1220.

Application of Franklin W. Herrick and Louis H. Bock

397 F.2d 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1968

In addition, the Supreme Court referred to the need, in determining patentability, to “guard against slipping into use of hindsight,” citing Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Sup. … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed ALMOND, J., concurs in the result. . In re Herrick, 344 F.2d 713 , 52 COPA 1664 (1965). . The board consisted of Messrs.

Daggett & Ramsdell, Inc. v. I. Posner, Inc

277 F.2d 952 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1960

277 F.2d 952 DAGGETT & RAMSDELL, INC. v. I. POSNER, INC. Patent Appeal No. 6525. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. May 3, 1960. Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, William E. Schuyler, Jr., Andrew B. … We are reassured in our judgment by the fact that it is in accord with the unanimous decision of the three members of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Cf. Rex Shoe Company v.

Polaroid Corporation v. Anken Chemical & Film Corporation, Assignee of Cormac Photo-Copy Corporation

343 F.2d 771 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1965

343 F.2d 771 POLAROID CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ANKEN CHEMICAL & FILM CORPORATION, Assignee of Cormac Photo-copy Corporation, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7280. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. … Brown, Cambridge, Mass., for appellant. Robert B. Harmon, Washington, D. C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges.

United States v. Richards & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 561 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1913

Owens-Illinois Glass Company v. Clevite Corporation

324 F.2d 1010 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1963

324 F.2d 1010 OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY, Appellant, v. CLEVITE CORPORATION, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7028. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. December 12, 1963. Francis C. Browne, Washington, D. … See Rex Shoe Co., Inc. v. Juvenile Shoe Corp., 273 F.2d 179 , 47 CCPA 748; Finn v.

United States v. Abercrombie

22 C.C.P.A. 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1934

Brown, Marian E. Stringer, and Charles F. Schondelmeier. … In the case of Marshall Field & Co. v.

Payne v. Moore

181 F.2d 243 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

“Payne’s case further distinguishes from O’Connell v. … The decision of the Board of Interference Examiners * is affirmed. Affirmed. * Throughout the record in this ease the board is frequently referred to as the “Board of Patent Interferences.”

East Asiatic Co.—New York Agency Inc. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise consists of 150 cases of a fine, light-brown powder which was imported into this country by the appellants from China. … In saying this we do not overlook the statement of the board to that effect in the present case, nor that of the court in the case of Procter & Co. v. United States ( 139 Fed., 586 ; affd. 145 Fed., 126 ).

Application of McIlhenny Company

278 F.2d 953 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1960

Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, William E. Schuyler, Jr., Andrew B. Beveridge, Washington, D. C. (Francis C. Browne, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. … Jantzen Knitting Mills v.

Application of Esso Standard Oil Company

305 F.2d 495 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 2, 1962

Browne, Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C. (William E. Schuyler, Jr., and Andrew B. Beveridge, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (George C. … The case of Burgess Battery Co. v.