Case law

Application of McIlhenny Company

278 F.2d 953 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1960

Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, William E. Schuyler, Jr., Andrew B. Beveridge, Washington, D. C. (Francis C. Browne, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. … Jantzen Knitting Mills v.

In re Burk

73 F.2d 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1934

Claims 18 and 23 are quoted as illustrative. v 18. … Co., 224 Fed. 464 ; Yablick v. Protecto Safety Appliance Corp. 21 F. (2d) 885; Danbury & Bethel Fur Co. v. American Hatters & Furriers Co., Inc., 54 F. (2d) 344.

In re Moore

444 F.2d 512 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1971

The question of the pertinency of the Brenner v. Manson decision may be disposed of rather easily. … In re Wilder, 57 CCPA 1314, 429 F. 2d 477 , 166 USPQ 545 (1970); In re Brown, 51 CCPA 1254, 329 F. 2d 1006 , 141 USPQ 245 (1964).

Koons, Wilson & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 333 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 13, 1918

At the’ hearing before the Board of General Appraisers the protestants submitted for the consideration of the board three groups of samples representative of the clays imported. … He said tbat some common blue clays could be identi-fled "by making them into crucibles or glass pots, and that tbe color of a common blue clay was anything from a bgbt drab to a black or very dark brown.

United States v. Shallus

7 Ct. Cust. 314 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

The board’s decision was made by General Appraisers Waite and Brown on testimony submitted at Baltimore by the Government and the importer. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of John J. Melchiore and Archibald P. Stuart

406 F.2d 1079 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 20, 1969

Earlier, the examiner too had noted that “it is well known that as soon as nitric oxide comes into contact with air, it forms brown fumes as a result of oxidation to nitrogen dioxide.” … The board did not consider certain documents submitted to it after its decision. Nor do we here. In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664 , 53 CCPA 830 (1966).

In re Chopak

20 C.C.P.A. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

Brown, and Albert MacC. Barnes, Jr., to investigate the facts, to take such testimony as might be deemed advisable, and to report the same, with its findings of fact and recommendations to the court. … The above incidents occurred in part during, and in part before and after petitioner’s suspension from practice before the Board of General Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court.

In re Dreyfus

68 F.2d 985 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 5, 1934

the article, relying on Ex parte Brown, 383 O.G. 558 . … Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 22 F. (2d) 259 and cases cited.”

Star Watch Case Co. v. Mido G. Schaeren & Co., S.A., by Change of Name From Societe Anonyme Mido, by Mesne Assignments From Mido Societe Anonyme

347 F.2d 894 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1965

Browne, Washington, D. C. (William E. Schuyler, Jr., Andrew B. Beveridge, Joseph A. DeGrandi, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. V. … Co., Inc. v. Simon, 81 USPQ 126 (CCPA, 1949); R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. v. The Richter & Phillips Co., 115 USPQ 342 (Comm'r. 1957) and Diplomat Tie Co. v.

Mendelson v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 346 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

Mendelson & *352 Co. v. United States (154 Fed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge, and PIüNt and Barber, Judges, concur. De Vries, Judge, having participated in the decision of the board, did not sit. ‘

United States v. Hercules Antiques

44 C.C.P.A. 209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1957

Also in point are Maier, Morton & Browne v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 115 , T. D. 38753; H. J. Heinz Co. v. United States, 43 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 128, C. A. D. 619; and Kobe Import Co. v. United States, 43 C. … United States v. National Aniline and Chemical Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 10 , T. D. 32287; United States v. Ocean Brokerage Co., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 38 , T. D. 38648; and Hull v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust.

United States v. Robinson

20 C.C.P.A. 222 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1932

This examination disclosed that the ends of two boards on one side of the-case had apparently been raised and replaced, and that there was a. vacant space in the case which was filled with waste burlap and brown paper. … The trial court held that the said report of the collector was untimely and no part of the record, citing Bonwit Teller & Co. v. United States, 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 238, T. D. 45339.

United States v. D. H. Grant & Co.

47 C.C.P.A. 20 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 16, 1959

In United States v. … And in United States v.

Application of Frederick C. Foster

343 F.2d 980 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

. § 103 . 7 *986 The solicitor points out that the Palmquist decision did not overrule In re Wenzel, 88 F.2d 501 , 24 CCPA 1050, and states that Bros Inc. v. Browning Mfg. … The “39-1” polymer, as well as others from Table V of Binder, did clearly form the basis of rejecting the remaining claims.

Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCH

397 F.2d 856 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1968

Waxham v. Smith, supra. … Written by Justice Brown wbo also wrote for the Court in Risdon. . The Weston tests for the patentability of processes have become the conventional wisdom. See, e. g., BlaCk-Clawson Co. v.

In Re Koehring

37 F.2d 421 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1930

In an unpublished decision of the Board of Examiners in Chief, dated January 12, 1921, relative to design patent No. 57381, issued March 15, 1921 (on file in the Patent Office and examined by us), for a tractor, the board … Co. v.

Application of Krukovsky

184 F.2d 333 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 29, 1950

Appellants contend “(1) that Olsen & Brown’s experiments were not in fact conclusive even as to the role of ascorbic acid with ‘washed cream’; >(2) that even if they had conclusively established that ascorbic acid caused … As this conclusion is determinative of the case, we need not consider the other grounds of rejection The decision of the Board of Appeals accordingly is affirmed. Affirmed.

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 415 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 7, 1938

United States v. Brown & Roese, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 382 , T. D. 35922; Constance v. United States, supra; Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T. D. 40026; Scaramelli v. United States, 12 Ct. … D. 40056; United States v. Neuman & Schwiers Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 207 , T. D. 40224; Penick & Ford (Ltd., Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 218 , T. D. 40228; United States v.

Vitelli v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 243 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1916

United States v. Hill ( 120 U. S., 169, 182 ); United States v. Philbrick ( 120 U. S., 52, 59 ); Brown v. United States ( 113 U. S., 568, 571 ).” Robertson v. Downing ( 127 U. … Robertson v. Downing ( 127 U. S., 607 ); Brown v. United States ( 113 U. S., 568, 571 ); United States v. Philbrick ( 120 U.

United States v. Hensel

7 Ct. Cust. 391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1917

A single witness of exceptional information and fairness testified before the board. He was a chemist and colorist connected with the importing firm. … (By General Appraiser Brown.) You get the same results in making this from naphthalene as you would from indigo? — A. The same chemical results. Q. (By Mr. Lawrence.)