Case law

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.

American Shipping Co. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 72 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1934

Louisville Bedding Co. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 328 , T.D. 41958; United States v. Linen Thread Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 359 , T.D. 41257. … It appears from the decision that the Board of General Appraisers attached significance to these facts, which are not present in the case at bar.

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.

United States v. Murphy

7 Ct. Cust. 35 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

J., in Lynch v. The People ( 16 Mich., 474 , 476): Tb.e rule in pleading statutes is stated by Mr. Justice Manning in Myers v. Carr ( 12 Mich., 63 ). … The board sustained the protest.

In re Bose

687 F.2d 432 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 23, 1982

McCormick v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 [ 18 S.Ct. 443 , 42 L.Ed. 875 ] (1898). … Co. v. Diamond, 629 F.2d 955 , 207 USPQ 177 (4th Cir. 1980), at f.n. 7. ANALYSIS The issue in this appeal is whether the board’s decision presents a case or contro *435 versy over which this court has jurisdiction.

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.

Lamont v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 431 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1931

United States v. Stouffer Co , 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 67 , T. D. 32351. … A. 6977, the Board of General Appraisers held stearic acid dutiable at 25 per centum ad valorem under the provision for “all other acids not specially provided for” in paragraph 1, Tariff Act of 1897^ and said: “In behalf

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 American Steel & Wire Co.

81 F.2d 397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1936

Co. v. The Studebaker Corp., 1913 C. D. 246, 197 O. G. 241 ; Ex parte Alden Co., 1907 C. D. 423, 131 O. G. 2419 ; Dunlap & Co. v. The Jackson & Gutman Co., 1924 O. D. 38, 326 O. G. 469 ; Ex parte C. S. … In its behalf, the appellant cites the case of Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co., 240 U. S. 251 , wherein the name, “The American Girl,” was held to be a valid trade-mark, and not geographical.

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 .

Central Vermont Railroad v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 262 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1921

Shith:, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The record in this case raises questions substantially the same as those involved in Tower & Sons et als. v. … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.

In re Carroll

88 F.2d 687 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1937

Appellant quotes excerpts from the cases of Nathan et al. v. Howard, 143 Fed. 889 ; Stockland v. Russell Grader Mfg. Co., 222 Fed. 906 , and Parker v. Automatic Mach. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Kraemer

4 Ct. Cust. 433 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

The Board of General Appraisers reversed the collector, and ordered classification under the provisions of said paragraph 54 by similitude as whiting, following the decision of this court in Bartley Bros & Hall v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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.

United States v. Ewing

3 Ct. Cust. 333 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … It is said, and the board evidently were of that opinion, that the case of United States v. Vietor ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 297 ; T. D. 31355) is complete authority for sustaining the importers’ contention.

In re Barber

62 F.2d 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

Gorham Company v. White, 14 Wall. 511, 526 ; Imperial Glass Co. v. Heisey & Co., 294 Fed. 267 ; Martin Copeland Co. v. Pilot Elec. Co., 32 F. (2d) 235; In re Walter, 17 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Tower & Sons v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1921

Tower & Sons et al. v. United States, suit No. 2071, just decided by this court, and for the reasons set out in the opinion in that case, the decision of the board is reversed.

Application of Thomas Lamb

327 F.2d 679 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 20, 1964

Judge Learned Hand, in Reiner v. I. … There are indeed some sign posts: e. g. how long did the need exist; how many tried to find the way; how long did the surrounding and accessory arts disclose the means * * V* In order that knowledge of the claimed invention

Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.

417 F.2d 795 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1969

417 F.2d 795 GULF STATES PAPER CORP., Appellant, v. CROWN ZELLERBACH CORP., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 8183. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. November 13, 1969. Raphael Semmes, Washington, D. … The decision of the board is affirmed. 14 Affirmed.