Case law

Sydney Archer v. Maxwell Gordon and John J. Lafferty v. Kuhrt Freter and Karl Zeile, Maxwell Gordon and John J. Lafferty v. Sydney Archer v. Kuhrt Freter and Karl Zeile

427 F.2d 1402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 8, 1970

427 F.2d 1402 Sydney ARCHER, Appellant, v. Maxwell GORDON and John J. Lafferty, Appellees, v. Kuhrt FRETER and Karl Zeile, Appellees. Maxwell GORDON and John J. Lafferty, Appellants, v. Sydney ARCHER, Appellee, v. … Freter, however, has relied solely on the opinion and decision of the board.

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.

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 .

In re Knox

65 F.2d 264 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1933

Appellant’s able counsel cite several authorities, including Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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.

Seven-Up Co. v. Bubble Up Corp. ex rel. O-So Grape Co.

312 F.2d 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra, and Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, supra. … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. The Seven-Up Company v. Schneeberger, d.b.a. Bubble Up Company, Civil Action No. 2884, District Court, E.D.

In re Holslag

171 F.2d 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

The situation here presented is closely analogous to that in the case of Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347 . … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Lorsch & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1918

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appeal. … Heresheimer & Co. 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.

In re Obermyer

181 F.2d 210 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

Instead, the board held that the affidavits in question were effective to establish utility for appellants’ composition. … Gelardin v. Revlon Products Corporation et al., 76 USPQ 154 .

Gray v. Fortunato

175 F.2d 585 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

However, we think, as did the board, that the carrier in issue is a device requiring a test to establish an actual reduction to practice. See Fridolph v. Bechik, 33 C. C. P. A. … We have examined the record and have earefully considered appellant’s brief and the argument of counsel, but are not convinced that the board committed error in its decision.

United States v. Henle Wax Paper Mfg. Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 487 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1923

In view of the agreement of counsel as to the nature and character of the merchandise and of our decision in Holland Frères (Inc.) v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 321 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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.

Spielman v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 61 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1911

United States v. Leggett (66 Fed. Rep., 300); United States v. Ross (91 Fed. Rep., 108); United States v. Dickon (73 Fed. Rep., 195); United States v. Marx & Rawolle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 152 ; T. D. 31210); Schmidt v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

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.

United States v. Nix

4 Ct. Cust. 145 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1913

The foregoing statement discloses the fact that the issue in the present case is identical with that in the case of United States v. Wallace et al., supra ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 142 ; T. … For the reasons set out in the Wallace case, the decision of the board in the present case is affirmed.

In re Hormel

56 F.2d 672 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1932

In Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Bland, J., dissents.

In Re Greider

187 F.2d 147 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1951

The board, however, stated that none of the claims in either application define the paper contemplated by appellants. … Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 207 , 52 S.Ct. 532 , 76 L.Ed. 1054 .

Lever Bros. Co. v. Babson Bros. Co

197 F.2d 531 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1952

Browne and William E. Schuyler, Jr., Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee. Before GARRETT, C. J., and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, JJ. On Petition for Reconsideration. … Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203 , 62 S.Ct. 1022 , 86 L.Ed. 1381 , rehearing denied, 316 U.S. 712 , 62 S.Ct. 1287 , 86 L.Ed. 1777 ; Sunbeam Furniture Corp. v.