Case law

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.

Steinman v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1912

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed. … We think this case is within the principle laid down in Dunn v. United States (2 Ct. Cust.. Appls., 65; T. D. 31627), and the decision of the board is, therefore, affirmed.

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.

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 ).

Balfour v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 376 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1924

—Wills v. Russell ( 30 Fed. Cas. 70 ); Tuska v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 65, 66, 67, 70 ; T. D. 38337); Igstaedter & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 477, 478 ; T. D. 39570). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Heltzel

137 F.2d 113 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1943

See Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. 1053, 96 F. (2d) 301, 37 USPQ 505 . For interference purposes, all limitations must be regarded as material. Field v. Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming that of the examiner, is accordingly affirmed.

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.

Bernard, Judae & Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1927

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed. On the hearing before the board, William D. … United States v. Post, 3 Ct. Cust Appls. 260, T. D. 32568; United States v. Rice Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 165, 167 , T. D. 37998; United States v. Bayersdorfer & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 377, 380 , T. D. 40541.

United States v. Murphy & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

D. 36144), and United States v. Bene ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 523 ; T. D. 36145). *250 On the other hand, the importers contend for the rule expressed in United States v. Garramone ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 30 ; T. … D. 31577) and United States v. Braun ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 57 ; T. D. 31596).

In re Wesselman

143 F.2d 610 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

Q. 11; Eppensteiner et al. v. Coe, 72 App. D. C. 169, 114 F. (2d) 457, 45 USPQ 298 . We have given careful study to the elements of the rejected claims in the light of appellant’s analysis of them. … All that the board said concerning them is quoted, supra.

Hartley v. Joyce

96 F.2d 296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1938

In fact they did nothing at all with the Hartley invention during that period. ; In view of our conclusion it is not necessary to discuss the applicability of the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. … C. 86, which was referred to in the decisions of the patent tribunals. , For the reasons herein stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Quong Chun & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 198 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

It would appear that the board relied upon the testimony taken in a former case in deciding the present case, and this action is assigned as error. *199 The same question was presented to this court in United States v. … We are constrained, therefore, to reverse the decision of the board and affirm the action of the collector.

In re Allen

88 F.2d 705 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1937

Smith v. Goodyear et al., 93 U. S. 486 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Sheldon & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 9 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers held it so processed as to be properly classifiable under the latter provision. The importers appeal and urge reversal of that decision. … Th© appellants rely in support of their claim upon the case of United States v. Sheldon & Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485 ; T. D. 32245).

Application of Marcella Ferens

417 F.2d 1072 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1969

In re Citron, 325 F.2d 248 , 51 CCPA 852 (1963); In re Novak, 306 F.2d 924 , 49 CCPA 1283 (1962); Radoev v. Brenner, 253 F.Supp. 923 (D.D.C.1966). … In re Irons, 340 F.2d 974 , 52 CCPA 938 (1965). *1075 Cf., In re Novak, supra; Radoev v. Brenner, supra.

Stone v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 365 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

This court in White & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 327 ; T. D. 32064) and in United States v. White & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 382 ; T. … The court is of the opinion, therefore, that the board erred. Reversed.

American Tobacco Co. v. Wix

62 F.2d 835 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1933

Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids, 238 U. S. 461 , 34 S. Ct. 648 , 58 L. Ed. 1046 ; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540 , 11 S. Ct. 625 , 35 L. Ed. 247 ; Howe Seale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict, 198 U. … As illustrations of this statement, see Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, supra; Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict, supra, and cases cited therein. In the ease of Howe Scale Co. v.

In re Abrahamsen

53 F.2d 893 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1931

Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187, 195 ; Slawson v. Grand Street R. R. Co., 107 U. S. 649, 653 ; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 163 ; In re Scott, 25 App. D. C. 307; In re Volkmann, 28 App. D. C. 441; Condit Elec. M. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Disch

112 F.2d 794 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1940

In the case of Morgan v. Drake et al., 11 C. C. P. A. … The Board of Appeals made no reference to it in its decision.

Application of Arthur H. Ahlbrecht

435 F.2d 908 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1971

V. D. … Therefore, we affirm the decision of the board. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 520,087 filed January 12, 1966, for “Fluorinated Esters.” 2 .