Case law

Strouse v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 192 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1921

In the brief and throughout the discussion importers rely upon the basic proposition so clearly enunciated by Judge Story in United States v. … —Gallagher v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 308 ; T.D. 33518).

In re Davis

164 F.2d 626 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 29, 1947

actually made, then we disagree with the board in that respect. … See United Carbon Co. et al. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U. S. 228 , and numerous cases therein cited. The decision of the board is affirmed.

Glemby's Sons Co. v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 30, 1928

United States v. Wakem & McLaughlin, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 385 , T. D. 35923; United States v. Field & Co., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 183 , T. D. 38550; United States v. Bernard, Judae & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. … United States v. Murphy & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 456, 461 , T. D. 41348; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat., 419, 438 ; Arnold v. United States, 147 U. S. 494, 499 .

In the Matter of the Application of Jacques Rousso

222 F.2d 732 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1955

Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U.S. 271 , 69 S.Ct. 535 , 93 L.Ed. 672 . … Seagram & Sons v. Marzall, 86 App.D.C. 100 , 180 F.2d 26 .

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.

United States v. Herskovits & Son

8 Ct. Cust. 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1917

We think that the board erred in assuming that the present issue is governed by the decision of this court in the case of Herskovits v. United States, above cited. … The decision of the board in support of the protest is therefore reversed,.

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.

Green Giant Co. v. United States

495 F.2d 775 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1974

The two other cases (United States v. Conkey Co. and John A. Conkey & Co. v. … The two additional cases are Border Brokerage Co., Inc. v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 487 , 284 F. Supp. 806 , C.D. 3437 (1968) and North Pacific Canners and Packers v. United States, 64 Cust.

Robert J. Clarkson v. Alfred W. Vibber

339 F.2d 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1964

The board herein quoted extensively from the detailed analysis in the opinion of the Board of Appeals, expressing complete-agreement with it. … Borm v. Champayne, 26 CCPA 1095, 102 F.2d 862 , and cases there cited.

Harris v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 265 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

United States v. Mayer (71 Fed. … In the case of Lawder v.

In re MacLean

90 F.2d 108 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

The Board of Appeals was of the same opinion. … The solicitor has cited as supporting authority for his contentions the case of Pickering et al. v. McCullough et al., 104 U. S., 310 ; In re Cross, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 788, 53 F. (2d) 902; Robbins v.

In re Nash

230 F.2d 428 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1956

Co. v. Union Electric Mfg. Co., 147 Fed. 266 ; Western Telephone Mfg. Co. v. American Electric Tel. Co., 131 Fed. 75 ; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845 ; American Valve & Meter Co. *831 v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Jackson, Judge, retired, recalled to participate.

In re Nordstrom

101 F.2d 666 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1939

Nordstrom appealed to the Board of Appeals respecting certain claims denied by the examiner. … Millner v. Voss (C. C., W. D. Va., 1882), 4 Hughes 262 , 48 Fed. 882 . The board said: This application relates to applying a secondary seal to a valve of conventional type.

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.

Application of Lyle B. Borst

345 F.2d 851 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

In addition to Schlittler and cases cited therein, see, e. g., Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., 7 Cir., 298 F.2d 36 (7th Cir. 1961); Rem-Cru Titanium, Inc. v. … The examiner’s position, affirmed by the board, was that the provision of such means would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

In re McKee

19 F.2d 905 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1935

The two claims rejected by the board, involved in this appeal, are as follows: 2. … See Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366 ; In re Tallmadge, 37 App. D. C. 590.

United States v. Interocean Forwarding Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 155 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917

The articles are conceded to be identical with those which were before this court in the case of Koch v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 534 ; T. D. 36148). … The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest, and the Government appealed. • The chief contention in the!

In re Widmer

102 F.2d 409 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1939

The decision in Metals Recovery Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. 31 Fed. (2d) 100 is deemed applicable in the instant case. … The Board of Appeals did not reverse the Primary Examiner’s decision as to any of the grounds of rejection applied by him.

In re Woolson

58 F.2d 434 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

The Hall reference, which was the sole reliance of the Board of Appeals, shows a construction for two types of engines, the upright or straight, and the V types. … The lower part of the bearing is V shaped and the upper part an inverted V shape, with opposed faces fitting closely together.

In Re Trester

36 F.2d 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

As is said in Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477, 486 , 16 S. Ct. 53, 54 , 40 L. … Tn other respects, however, we are in agreement with the decision of the Board of Appeals that claims 1 to 6, inclusive, and 8, were properly rejected. Affirmed.