Case law

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.

In re Murray

77 F.2d 651 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1935

(Patents) 1046, 64 F. (2d) 788; Topliff v. Topliff et al., 145 U. S. 156, 170 . … For these reasons, we are of opinion the decision of the Board of Appeals should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

In Re Coey

190 F.2d 347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Lempco Products v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 110 F. (2d) 307; In re Hock, 35 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1235, 168 F. (2d) 540, 78 USPQ 75 . We will consider the method claim 17 first. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Osborn Manufacturing Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 276 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1915

Fenton v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 529 ; T. D. 31546). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

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 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.

Draz & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1918

The contention of the importers is that this case falls within the case of Hayes v. … The reliance of the importers is upon the case of Hayes v. United States, supra, where what was involved was really a stopper to the bottle and certain labels.

Kleinberger v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 571 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1925

In United States v. … In United States v. Dudley ( 174 U. S. 670 ), spruce boards and planks, planed on one side and tongued and grooved, were classified *575 for duty as manufactures of wood.

Application of Robert J. Harry

333 F.2d 920 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 9, 1964

While the revision note to 102(e) states that it “enacts the rule of [Alexander] Milburn [Co.] v. … In Detrola Radio & Television Corp. v.

United States v. Kuppenheimer

6 Ct. Cust. 389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1915

The Government, appealing, claims the board erred in its last above finding, and insists upon the facts stated that there was no^ manifest clerical error. *391 From wbat already appears it is apparent that the board concluded … See also United States v. Swedish Produce Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223 ). In United States v. Proctor ( 5 Ct. Cust.

Wedgwood v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 434 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1917

The converse of this question was presented in Hahn v. United States ( 100 Fed., 635 ). … The court is disposed, in these circumstances, to follow the *438 logic of Hahn v.

In re Way

514 F.2d 1057 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1975

The References The references relied upon by the board are: Davis et al. … Stalego et al. v. Heymes et al., 46 CCPA 772, 263 F.2d 334 , 120 U.S.P.Q. 473 .

In re Mullin

481 F.2d 1333 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 16, 1973

In support of their position, appellants cite a number of cases including two decisions of the Supreme Court, Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 , 26 L.Ed. 279 (1880) and Eibel Process Co. v. … Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 711 [ 26 L.Ed. 279 ] [other citations omitted].

American Biltrite Rubber Co., Inc. v. The Barash Company, Inc.

390 F.2d 758 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1968

Appellant criticizes our contrary decision in Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. Englander Co., 324 F.2d 186 , 51 CCPA 833 (1964), and asks that it be overruled. … The board thought it would. We agree.

Holister v. Maynard

129 F.2d 877 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1942

Raymond et al. v. Wickersham, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1079, 110 F. (2d) 863. … For the reasons hereinabove set out, it is clear to us that the Board of Interference Examiners committed no error, and the decision appealed from is affirmed.

Larzelere & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 64 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 23, 1917

D. 20925), United States v. Schering ( 163 Fed., 246 ), and Klipstein v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 510 ; T. D. 33936). … See also Bliven v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 205 ; T. D. 31239) and United States v. Kuyper ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 142 ; T. D. 35393).

Independent Grocers' Alliance Distributing Co. v. Potter-Mccune Company

404 F.2d 622 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1968

The board found that there is a likelihood of confusion, and we agree. … Whatever inference appellant would prefer us to thus draw is somewhat dispelled by the present board decision and by Potter-McCune Company v.

Schnaier v. Farr

99 F.2d 968 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1938

Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 286 ; Pflueger v. Jordan, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1123, 76 F. (2d) 293. … The provision requiring the appealing party to furnish legible typewritten copies of the record was wholly for the convenience of the board in the performance of its duties. United States etc. v. Coe, 91 F. (2d) 238.

In re Dougherty

79 F.2d 920 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1935

The Board of Appeals affirmed the Primary Examiner’s rejection of all the claims, of which claims 11 and 16 were regarded as illustrative by the board and will be so regarded by us. They follow: 11. … Thropp's Sons Company v. Sieberling, 264 U. S. 320 . The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Veit, Son & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 290 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1918

Loewenthal v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 209 -216; T. D. 35464); Siegman & Weil v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 195 ; T. D. 36506). … United States v. Meadows ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 143 ; T. D. 31665); True Fit Waterproof Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 489 ; T. D. 37107).