Case law

Smith v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1934

The board, speaking through Waite, General Appraiser, and referring particularly to Dodge v. … It is argued that the decision in Dodge v. United States, supra, was afterwards repudiated and departed from by this court in Reed & Keller v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 95, T.D. 34133.

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 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.

Preston v. White

92 F.2d 813 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1937

We cited the cases of MacGregor v. Chesterfield and Heidbrink v. McKesson, supra, and followed the doctrine announced therein. … Schweyer, supra, and Bloodheart v. Levernier, supra, were expressly approved.

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 Marzocchi

456 F.2d 790 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1972

After consideration of “the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” Graham v. … The board did not find it necessary to discuss those references, nor do we.

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 .

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.

In re Alden

81 F.2d 875 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1936

The Solicitor for the Patent Office relies upon Writer v. Kiwad, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 869, 63 F. (2d) 259, as supporting the decision of the Board of Appeals. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

United States v. Coccaro

4 Ct. Cust. 506 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1913

The board held that the merchandise was properly subject to duty at 20 per cent under paragraph 480. *507 In this court the issue is narrowed in each case. … But the Government contends that in case No. 622923 the articles are dutiable as manufactures in part of metal, on the authority of United States v. Park & Tilford ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 350 ; T. D. 32907).

Application of Peet

211 F.2d 602 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1954

The Walker reference is a design patent for a water heater cabinet and it shows a V-ing of the front of the deck or top plate. … Both the examiner and the Board were of the opinion that to modify the Ruten-ber top by applying a V-formation to the front edge thereof, in view of the teachings of the Walker reference, would not amount to design invention

United States v. National Sugar Refining Co.

39 C.C.P.A. 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 7, 1951

S. 143 , the merchandise involved was placed on board a vessel bound for a foreign port to be used and consumed on board the vessel during its voyage, and it in fact was so used and consumed. … This decision was cited as controlling *101 by the Board of Appraisers at New York in a similar case. Saxon v. United States, 2 Treas. Dec. 199 , T. D. 21476.