Case law

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.

Application of Bowden

183 F.2d 115 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1950

White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co., 2 Cir., 20 F.2d 311, 313 . … Co. v. Gould Mersereau Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 793, 794 .

In re Ferguson

208 F.2d 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 24, 1953

See Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, 148 U. S. 674 , and footnote No. 1 in the case of In re Bigelow, 39 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 827, 829, 194 F. (2d) 545, 93 USPQ 14 . … See also Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, supra; Forestek Plating and Mfg. Co. v. Knapp-Monarch Co., 106 F. (2d) 554.

Matter of the Application of Walter D. Teague, Jr

254 F.2d 145 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 2, 1958

Neumair v. Malocsay, 77 F.2d 622 , 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1349. … For the foregoing reasons the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed as to claims 8, 9, 10 and 15. Affirmed.

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.

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 Russell

239 F.2d 387 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1956

Woelev, 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 rejection by the Primary Examiner of the single claim of appellant … Gorham Company v. White, 81 U. S. 511 ; In re Bonnell, 29 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1104, 129 F. 2d 520 , 54 USPQ 202 ; In re Campbell, 41 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 896, 212 F. 2d 606 , 101 USPQ 406 .

In re Haas

81 F.2d 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1936

Thompson, etc. v. Boisselier et al., 114 U. S. 1 . … (Patents) 700, 36 F. (2d) 128, we quoted with approval from the case of Murray Rubber Co. v.

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.

Schrader v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 100 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1913

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 158, 162 ; T. D. 31211). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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.

In re Crouch

129 F.2d 690 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1942

Cases to the contrary are American Stainless Steel Co. v. Rustless Iron Corporation, 2 F. Supp. 742 ; Handley Page, Ltd. v. Leech Aircraft, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 856 ; and Woburn Degreasing Co. v. … It is proper to say that the decision of the board in the instant case was rendered April 30, 1941, and that our decision in the Normann et al. v. Schmidt et al. case, supra, was rendered February 2, 1942.

In re Blair

162 F.2d 469 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1947

Jones et al. v. General Fireproofing Co., 260 O. G. 562 ; 1919 C. D. 241; 254 Fed. Rep. 97. … Further grounds of rejection on the part of the examiner were approved by the board, but since we agree with the rejection of the examiner as affirmed by the board in the above quoted portion of the board’s opinion it is

United States v. Friedman

13 Ct. Cust. 341 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

From this decision of the Board of General Appraisers the Government appeals, conceding that under the ruling in the case of United States v. Sheldon & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 53 , T. … There is no evidence in the record, which we could properly consider, that would justify us in reversing the finding of the board. There are no exhibits in the case.

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.

Methuen International Mills v. Rajinder Fabrics, Inc.

406 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1969

Co., 275 F.2d 736 , 47 CCPA 821 (1960); Cooperative Quality Marketing, Inc. v. Dean Milk Co., 314 F.2d 552 , 50 CCPA 1138 (1963); and Star Watch Case Co. v. Mido G. … We therefore affirm the board’s decision. Affirmed. 1 . Reg.

Application of Homer G. Thomson

315 F.2d 919 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1963

The majority, however, then quotes a portion from the board opinion which states the board’s erroneous analysis and application of the disclosure of the Steenweg .patent. … See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., et al. v. Ray-O-Vac Company, 321 U.S. 275 , 64 S.Ct. 593 , 88 L.Ed. 721 . For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the decision of the board. .

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.