Case law

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.

In re Suska

589 F.2d 527 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1979

Thomson v. … Opinion and Decision of Board of Patent Interferences, dated August 27, 1975 (unpublished). . But see Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277, 1283 , 180 USPQ 388, 393 (CCPA 1974) (Rich, J., concurring). .

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.

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.

United States v. Tower & Sons

10 Ct. Cust. 155 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1920

The Board of General Appraisers sustained th,e protest, and the Government appealed. On the hearing before the board, M. O. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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.

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.

In re Venner

262 F.2d 91 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1958

said power-operated means in order ot move said middle section downwardly at the end of said period to release it from the casting and to permit the side sections to freely move laterally away from the casting, and means v … Therefore, we find no patentable distinctions recited over the prior art of record in claims 1, 2, or 5, and accordingly affirm the board’s rejection of those claims.

Budlong Pickle Co. v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 174 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1928

We think this question is definitely settled in United States v. La Manna, Azema & Farnan et al., 14 Ct. Oust. Appls. 123, T. D. 41647, and United States v. Pacific Trading Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 131 , T. D. 41649. … The Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) sustained the protest. This court reversed the judgment of the board and held the merchandise properly dutiable under paragraph 773.

Goodman & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 290 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

quills” in that section was used to .describe the horny substance of the quill, and that as these articles were likewise dutiable as feathers, they should be held dutiable under paragraph 438, as had been determinéd by the Board … It was said: In the present case it is to be noted that the words interpreted by the decision of the court in United States v. Stearns, supra, were “quills, prepared.”

Application of John W. Hession, Jr

296 F.2d 930 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1961

Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App.D.C. 535 ; In re Shimer, 69 F.2d 556 , 21 CCPA 979, 21 USPQ 161 ; In re Rhodes, 80 F.2d 525 , 23 CCPA 816, 28 USPQ 75 ; Josserand v. … Land v. Dreyer, 155 F.2d 383 , 33 CCPA 1108, 69 USPQ 602 ; Anderson v. Walch, 152 F.2d 975 , 33 CCPA 774, 68 USPQ 215 . . Black’s Law Dictionary, 3d Ed. 1933: AVOIDANCE.

In re Hodler

73 F.2d 507 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1934

a “ vital union ” such as is referred to in Pickering v. … See Grinnell Washing Machine Co. v. E. E. Johnson Co., 247 U. S. 426 ; Durham v. Seymour, 6 App. D. C. 78; In re Germantown Trust Co., Executor, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1140, 57 F. (2d) 365; In re Ernest G. Dann, 18 C.

United States Steel Corporation v. Vasco Metals Corporation

394 F.2d 1009 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1968

394 F.2d 1009 UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. VASCO METALS CORPORATION, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7937. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. May 23, 1968. Donald G. Dalton, Pittsburgh, Pa. … concur in the result reached by the majority for the reasons set forth in Old Grantian Co., Ltd. v.

In re Mattox

461 F.2d 826 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1972

Compare Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 (1941), and In re Land, 54 CCPA 806, 818-19, 368 F. 2d 866, 874-75 , 151 USPQ 621 , 629 (1966). … Brenner v.

In re Oppenheim

71 F.2d 188 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

In the case of Bloom v. Locke et al., 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 888, 69 F. (2d) 113, this court had occasion to consider and pass upon an issue involving the proper construction of the word “ orifice.” … The decision of the Board of Appeals is modified, being reversed as to claims Nos. 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, and affirmed as to claims Nos. 24, 26, and 27.

Hartog v. Long

47 F.2d 365 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1931

Podlesak and Podlesak v. McInnerney, 1906 C. D. 265. … The decision of the Board of Appeals, awarding priority of the subject matter involved in this appeal to Gulick, is affirmed.

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.

In Re King

107 F.2d 618 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1939

Therefore, the case of Parke-Davis & Co. v. Mulford & Co., 2 Cir., 196 F. 496 , wherein it is shown that the old source of adrenalin was. most unsatisfactory, referred to by appellants is inapplicable. … Since we find no error in the rejection of the appealed claims the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Barba v. Brizzolara

104 F.2d 198 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1939

In the case of Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. … This principle is supported by Cooper v. Downing, supra, and numerous other cases not necessary to cite here. *1287 In the case of Townsend v. Smith, 17 C. C. P. A.

In re Frank

48 F.2d 934 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1931

The Gentsch device shows a V-shaped cross section into the apex of which the small wire fits and the large wire is clamped against it by the manipulation of the screw. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is modified, being reversed as to claims 3, 6, and 7 and affirmed as to claims 4 and 5.