Case law

Globe-Union Inc. v. Dudley B. Clark, D.B.A. Clark Electronic Laboratories

311 F.2d 819 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

311 F.2d 819 GLOBE-UNION INC., Appellant, v. Dudley B. CLARK, d.b.a. Clark Electronic Laboratories, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6890. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. January 16, 1963. John W. … The board further concluded that confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers is not reasonably likely to occur.

Application of Ernst F. G. Klesper

397 F.2d 882 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1968

. §§ 102 (e), 120; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ladd, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 275 , 349 F.2d 710 , (1965), certiorari denied 382 U.S. 973 , 86 S.Ct. 536 , 15 L.Ed.2d 465 ; Asseff v. … The decision of the board affirming the rejection on Frost is therefore affirmed.

C. J. Van Houten & Zoon, Inc. v. United States

48 C.C.P.A. 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1961

Co., Inc. v. … In Arthur v.

In re Fracalossi

681 F.2d 792 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1982

Furthermore, the board, in affirming the rejection under § 103, did not in effect make a new rejection under § 102 as occurred in In re Echerd, 471 F.2d 632 , 176 U.S.P.Q. 321 (C.C.P.A.1973). … Aside from the statutory problem with an irrebuttable section 103 case (Graham v.

Haskelite Manufacturing Corp. v. Plymold Corp.

162 F.2d 464 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1947

The Abestone Co. v. The Philip Carey Manufacturing Co., 41 App. D. C. 507, 1914 C. D. 146. … Howard Co. v. Baldwin Co., 48 App. D. C. 437, 1924 C. D. 310, 313.

Application of Edward E. Thompson

422 F.2d 914 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1970

We affirm the board’s decision. Appellant’s invention is an improved thin-film electrical resistor. … Appellant renews his arguments before us, contending that the principles of United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 , 86 S.Ct. 708 , 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966), require a reversal in the present case.

Ullstrand v. Coons

147 F.2d 698 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1945

O’Connell, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal by UUstrand from an award of priority to Coons in a decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office in an interference … The term “connect” is defined in Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, 1939, as follows: connect * * * v. Transitive: 1.

Rene A. Higonnet and Louis M. Moyroud v. Daniel H. Robbins and Victor M. Corrado

351 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1965

Smith v. Wehn, 318 F.2d 325 , 50 CCPA 1544. … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

United States v. American Whaling Co.

38 C.C.P.A. 164 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1951

Portland, England, on the way out to the whaling grounds; that he remained on board until the Frango arrived at New York and that Lieutenant Midtlyng was on board pursuant to an international agreement; that the crew was … In United States v. Western Operating Corp., 35 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 71, C. A.

Cleveland-Detroit Corporation v. Camco (Machinery) Limited

277 F.2d 958 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1960

The board also seems to have given weight to the fact that much of the equipment sold by appellant is of a relatively small hand-operated type. … Co., Inc. v. Continental Motors Corp., 230 F.2d 621 , 43 CCPA 841, and General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., Inc., 254 F.2d 154 , 45 CCPA 872.

Maynard v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 297 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1918

In United States v. … The decision of the board was clearly right and is affirmed.

Kaskel v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 38 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1913

United States v. Citroen ( 223 U. S., 407, 415 ). … D. 17959); Erhardt v. Ballen ( 55 Fed., 968 ).

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.

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.

Joseph Petisi and James Howard Boothe v. Hans H. Rennhard and Charles R. Stephens, Jr.

363 F.2d 903 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1966

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of invention to appellees Renn-hard et al., the senior party, in interference No. 92,332 between Petisi et al. application serial No. … More specifically, the issue is whether that parent application teaches either of the above-indicated 7-nitro and 9-nitro compounds, and thereby entitles appellants to an award of priority under the rule of Kyrides v.

United States v. Florea & Co.

25 C.C.P.A. 292 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

In deciding the case, Judge Brown wrote an opinion in which Presiding Judge McClelland concurred by a special concurring opinion. … Marvel v. Merritt, 116 U. S. 11 ; United States v. North American Mercantile Co., 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 378, T. D. 43820.

Ronning Machinery Co. v. Winsor

76 F.2d 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1935

In Sachs v. Wadsworth, 18 C. C. P. A. … Stern et al. v. Schroeder et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 690, 696, 36 F. (2d) 518; Derby v. Whitworth, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 791, 796, 62 F. (2d) 368; Hendrickson et al. v. Ronning et al., 22 C. C. P. A.

Sheldon v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 419 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1927

. > When the case came on for hearing before the board, now the United States Customs Court, the real importers, the entry here having been made by the appellants for them, produced a witness who testified in substance that … See United States v. Martorelli, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 327, where figs were held to be articles within the contemplation of section 304.

United States v. Dent, Allcroft & Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 30, 1928

The collector, however, held the contents to be dutiable, and the Board of General Appraisers sustained him. … United States v. Lippman, Spier & Hahn, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 336 , T.

Application of David M. Griver

354 F.2d 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1966

The board, in its decision, found that the holes in Fig. 2 “appear to be arranged in a substantially equipotential line.” … The “picture” comparison method of determining patentability was ignored by Judge Holtzoff in Hoerr v. Watson, 156 F.Supp. 182 (D.C.1947). It should be ignored in this appeal also. .