Case law

Kristinus Gesellschaft, Mit Beschrankter Haftung v. Murray, Sons & Co., Limited

370 F.2d 581 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1967

Co. v. Milwaukee Faucets, Inc. [ 311 F.2d 817 , 50 CCPA 898] 136 USPQ 215 (CCPA, 1963); The Fleischmann Distilling Corporation et al. v. … These matters were all dealt with in the opinion of the board. After a review of the record, we find no error in the board’s decision. The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

Jones v. Evans

46 F.2d 197 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1931

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. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is i’cversed, and priority is awarded to the party Jones on counts 1 and 2 of the interference. Reversed.

Jaeger's Sanitary Woolen System Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 181 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1921

In Hiller v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is 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).

Alsberg v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 32 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

In United States v. Douglas & Berry, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 100 , T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Arthur W. Langer, Jr., and Erik Tornqvist v. Daniel Kaufman and Bryce H. McMullen

416 F.2d 1405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1969

Reed did not seek judicial review of the board’s decision. … Additionally, Adams v.

In re Walters

169 F.2d 79 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1948

Hatfeeld, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the Primary Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17 and 18 in appellant … Co. et al. v. Continental Briar Pipe Co., Inc., 93 F. (2d) 271, 36 USPQ 279 ; Triangle Conduit & Cable Co., Inc. v. National Electric Products Corporation, 56 F. Supp. 979 , 62 USPQ 350 ; and In re Lee, 33 C. C. P. A.

Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 290 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1911

In Sampson v. Peaslee ( 20 How., 571 ) and in Irvine v. … Gibb v. Washington ( 10 Fed. Cas., 288 ); Hutton v. Schell ( 12 Fed. Cas., 1095 ). In Gibb v. Washington, the court, referring to Forman v.

United States v. Cross Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 58 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 10, 1920

Tbe board beld the merchandise dutiable as needle cases or needle boxes, furnished with assortments of needles or combinations of needles and other articles, at 20 per cent ad valorem. … Counsel rely upon the language of the case of Cross v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 196 ; T. D. 37413), as modifiying or distinguishing the Poirier case. The so-called needlecases considered in Cross v.

In re Niven

62 F.2d 360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

The board cited Smith v. … Carnes Artificial Limb Co. v. Dilworth Arm Co., supra; Kimloch Tel. Co. v. Western Elec. Co., 113 Fed. 659 .

Application of Glenn E. Irish

433 F.2d 1342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1970

This rejection was affirmed on appeal to the Board of Appeals. … The examiner added that Even if the terminal disclaimer were considered as to its effect upon the double patenting rejection, under the authority of Hays et al. v.

Application of John Lynde Anderson and David C. England

329 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1964

Kyrides v. Anderson et al, 50 USPQ 131 ; In re Koose et al., [sic, Kaase et al.,], 104 [sic, 140] Fed.2nd. 1016; [31 CCPA 932]; and Conover v. Downs, 35 Fed.2nd 59. … of Patent Interferences, in its Decision dated January 21, 1959 * * *, indulged in what is plainly obiter dictum, * * Relying on Glass v.

In re Weingartner

58 F.2d 442 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

A number of claims were allowed by the primary examiner, those on appeal being rejected, of course, both by the examiner and the Board of Appeals. … (Patents) 728, 53 F. (2d) 543, following Braren v. Horner, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 971, 47 F. (2d) 358, and cases therein cited, .is here applicable.

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.

Hamfton v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 490 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers, on appeal, sustained the classification, and importers appeal. … V, pp. 3983-4009, and Pt.

Lietz Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 426 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923

In United States v. International Forwarding Co. (id. 156, T. … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.

Phil E. Weiss (Deceased) by Mildred L. Weiss, Administratrix, and Abraham M. Reiter v. Erwin M. Roschke, Erwin M. Roschke v. Phil E. Weiss (Deceased) by Mildred L. Weiss, Administratrix, and Abraham M. Reiter

425 F.2d 772 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 30, 1970

Referring to McCutchen v. Oliver, 367 F.2d 609 , 54 CCPA 756 (1966); Hall v. … Long v. Young, supra; Smith v. Wehn, supra. 20 In the present case, we find no ambiguity as to count 8 and counts 1, 9, 11-13 and 16, which the board grouped with it.

Petry Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 524 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 23, 1915

This feature distinguishes this case from that of Macmillan Co. v. … For the reasons stated the decision of the board is affirmed.

United States v. General Bakelite Corp.

13 Ct. Cust. 607 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1926

The board held, McClelland, G. … Lehn & Fink v. United States, supra.

Bloch v. Sze

484 F.2d 1202 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1973

See Sze v. Bloch, 458 F.2d 137 , 59 CCPA 983 (1972). … Wagoner v. Barger, 463 F. 2d 1377 , 59 CCPA — (1972). For the foregoing reasons it is our belief that he failed to discharge this burden. The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. . U.S.