Case law

Amerlux Steel Corp. v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 449 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1931

The Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) in an opinion, T. D. 29405, G. A. 6834, 16 Treas. Dec. 382 , took the same view that was taken in Hill v. … Wood & Co., supra, the board, after referring to the latter case, saying: On appeal * * * the board was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, third circuit, in Hill v. Wood * * *.

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.

Malcolm Kent Smith v. Frank Wesley Lane

233 F.2d 621 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1956

Simpson v. Neracher, 191 F.2d 416 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 709. Where the counts are broadly drawn, and not ambiguous, they must be given the broadest construction which they will reasonably permit, Martin v. … Friendly, 58 F.2d 421 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1181, and the word reasonably should not be deleted, De Benneville v. Anderson, 212 F.2d 612 , 41 C.C.P.A., Patents, 891.

Josef Fried v. Herbert C. Murray

267 F.2d 326 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1959

The board found that the earlier filed Murray et al. … Conover v. Downs, 35 F.2d 59 , 17 CCPA 587.

United States v. Clarke

13 Ct. Cust. 462 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

This was overlooked, inadvertently no doubt, by the board in its decision, and in the judgment entered thereon. … In the case of United States v. Murphy & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 456 , T.

Application of Karl Ziegler, Heinz Breil, Erhard Holzkamp and Heinz Martin

363 F.2d 885 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1966

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1-8 in appellants’ application 1 entitled “Purification of Olefin Polymers.” … See Geophysical Development Corp. v. Coe, 78 U.S. App.D.C. 39, 136 F.2d 275 , cert. den. 320 U.S. 760 , 64 S.Ct. 68 , 88 L.Ed. 453 .

Overton & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

United States v Mescall ( 215 U. S., 26 ). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Davies Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

D. 34189); Reiche v. Smythe ( 13 Wall. 162 -163); Arthur v. Morrison ( 96 U. S. 108, 110, 111 ); *396 Arthur v. Lahey ( 96 U. S. 112 -115); Worthington v. Abbott ( 124 U. S. 434 -436); Robertson v. Rosenthal ( 132 U. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Tokstad-Burger Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 441 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The Board of General Appraisers, sustaining the collector, held that the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem was applicable. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Yazaki Corporation

437 F.2d 1406 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1971

We have considered those arguments and the cited cases, including Arrow Distilleries, Inc. v. Globe Brewing Company, 117 F.2d 347 (4th Cir.1941), but are not persuaded there is reversible error in the decision below. … The board’s finding that the channels of trade and class of purchasers would ordinarily be the same, uncontradicted by any evidence to the contrary, seems wholly reasonable.

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 144 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1919

In Bliven v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 205 ; T. … See also Oelrichs v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 232 ; T. D. 32541) and United States v. Troy Laundry Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 431 ; T. D. 34947), a case directly in point. The case of Michelin Tire Co. v.

Bainbridge v. Walton

104 F.2d 808 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

(See Kitchen v. Smith, 1913 C. D. 336, 39 D. C. App. 500, and Dunbar v. Schellenger, 1906 C. D. 428.) … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Carpenter

151 F.2d 207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1945

Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. 324 U. S. 320 , 64 USPQ 412 , decided March 5, 1945; In re Gauerke, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 725, 86 F. (2d) 330, 31 USPQ 330 , and In re Kepler, 30 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Miller v. Hayman

46 F.2d 188 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1931

Upon appeal to the Board of Appeals, the decision of the Examiner was affirmed, the Board affirming the finding of the Examiner that the case came within the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, supra. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Stenger v. Holmes

103 F.2d 410 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1939

Lemp v. Mudge, 24 App. D. C. 282; Paul v. Hess, 24 App. D. C. 462; Hillard v. Brooks, 23 App. D. C. 526; Krueger v. Chabot, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1128, 83 F. (2d) 832. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Murray

53 F.2d 541 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1931

A similar holding was made in Star Bucket Pump Co. v. Butler Mfg. … For these reasons, the decision of the Board of Appeals is aflrmed.

Application of Arthur v. Hughes

345 F.2d 184 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 20, 1965

345 F.2d 184 Application of Arthur V. HUGHES. Patent Appeal No. 7312. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. May 20, 1965. John A. Blair, Detroit, Mich., C. Willard Hayes, Washington, D. C., Everett R. … The board affirmed that rejection.

Pet Milk Company v. Knudsen Creamery Co. Of California

341 F.2d 941 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1965

On this subject of inclusion, see our decisions in Purex Corp., Ltd. v. United Drug Co., 67 F.2d 918 , 21 CCPA 753 (PUREX registrable over REX marks), United Drug Co. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

Hawn v. Fritz

17 C.C.P.A. 802 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

GRAiiam, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The issues in this matter have been fully considered in No. 2214, Philip Fritz v. Harold A. … In accordance with our conclusion expressed in the opinion filed in said No. 2214, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Ernest W. Franck and Stephen A. Schettini

255 F.2d 931 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1958

Co. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. … For the foregoing reasons the board’s rejection of the appealed claims is reversed.