Case law

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States

681 F.2d 778 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1982

For example, various electronic components and a bare but otherwise finished circuit board are imported into a beneficiary developing country and there assembled by soldering into an assembled circuit board for a computer … Compare, e.g., Adolphe Schwob, Inc. v. United States, 62 Treas.

In re Beach

70 F.2d 916 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1934

Field v. Stow, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1502, 49 F. (2d) 1072; Atherton v. Payne, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 867, 54 F. (2d) 821; In re Bijur, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1134, 40 F. (2d) 999; In re Creveling, 20 C.C.P.A. … Slattery v. Larner, 17 C.C.P.A. 725 , 36 F.(2d) 298 . The foregoing quotation is applicable to the case at bar, and we hold-that said claim 15 was properly rejected by the Patent Office tribunals.

In re Champeau

34 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 -542; In re Cranmer, 52 App. D. C. 257. That he has done so we can not doubt. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed as to claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 and is affirmed as to claims 4, 5, 6, and 9.

In re Gookin

173 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

Research Corporation v. … Research Corporation v.

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.

Zimmermann v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 104 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1914

Afterwards this subject came again before the board and courts in the cases of United States v. Rheims ( 175 Fed., 778 ; T. D. 30226) and Paterson v. United States ( 166 Fed., 733 ; T. D. 29377). … See United States v. Cochran ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 57 ; T. D. 32349) and United States v. Buss & Warner ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 87 ; T. D. 32357).

In re Holst

44 F.2d 873 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

Pupin v. Hutin et al. v. Stone, 1902, C. D. 269, pp. 280 to 283. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Walter Charles Joseph Ross and Walter Davis

305 F.2d 878 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

The rejection of claims 1 and 2 on the same art was reversed by the Board of Appeals and it seems clear that such reversal should have extended also to the process claims. … Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157 , 27 CCPA 1136.

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.

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).

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.

Abraham v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 311 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1914

board, such cases had already been passed upon in principle adversely to the importers’, contention by this court. … Under the circumstances, it being necessary that the decisions of the Board of General Appraisers be reversed, we think that the ends of justice will be subserved by new trials. It is ordered accordingly. Vandegrift 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.

Woolworth v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 242 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

The Board of General Appraisers declined to accept this view of the statute. … This court in Illfelder & Co. et al. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 299 ; T.

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.

United States v. McConnell

1 Ct. Cust. 73 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

Claflin Co. v. United States (109 Fed. Rep., 562) and Mills et al. v. United States (109 Fed. Rep., 564), which were affirmed in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 114 Fed. … Many cases are cited in support of this proposition, the latest being Komada & Co. v. United States ( 215 U. S., 392 ).