Case law

Application of Alfred W. Krogman

223 F.2d 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1955

art in rejecting the claims. “(3) The Board improperly combined references in rejecting the claims. “(4) The Board failed to recognize that there is no sound reason for including ixtle and sisal in the same botanical family … In the case of Fowler v.

Cassela Color Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1915

This court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Nichols ( 186 U. … The decision of the board sustaining the collector’s assessment is affirmed.

United States v. Golden Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

We incline on the whole to sustain the judgment of the board. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Dixon

44 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

The law is well settled by Hotel Security, etc., v. Lorraine Co (C. C. A.) 160 F. 467 , 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 665; Berardini v. Tocci (C. C. A.) 200 F. 1021 ; Moore v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 120 ; In re Moeser, 27 App. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Atkinson

102 F.2d 882 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

See Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Hawley Hardware Co., 60 F. (2d) 1019 (reversed on grounds which did not involve the foregoing principle in 64 F. (2d) 10). See also Consolidated Window Glass Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Madsen

197 F.2d 536 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1952

For the reason just stated, the board’s rejection of claim 48 will be sustained. … (Patents) 1129; Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Andis Clipper Co., 7 Cir., 66 F.2d 162, 165 .

Spiers v. United States

47 C.C.P.A. 118 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1960

The following three cases are cited by appellant in support of that proposition: United States v. Mrs. Adelaide Ehrich, 22 CCPA 1, T.D. 47019; O. O. Friedlaender Co. v. … As was said in Mazer v.

Levy Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 550 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1925

contends that not being artificial, although concededly ornamental, the articles are not classifiable as artificial feathers or as artificial and ornamental fruits, grains, leaves, and flowers, citing Bayersdorfer & Co. v. … The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Macksoud Importing Co.

25 C.C.P.A. 44 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

It was by virtue •of the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1922 that this court, in the case of United States v. Macy & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 245 , T. … D. 41199, for the first time judicially declared as follows: * * * With the enlarged powers which have been conferred upon the board and its members by Congress, we can not doubt that the board is a court of the United States

T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc. v. United States

44 C.C.P.A. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

One of the cases we there cited with approval was Brown & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , T. … In Brown & Co. v.

United States v. Zenith Radio Corp.

562 F.2d 1209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1977

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 , 398 (1821). The clearest complete explanation of the complex Russian sugar-scheme in Downs appears in the Board of General Appraisers’ opinion, Downs v. … For example, in Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Territorial Board of Equalization, 206 U.S. 474, 479 (1907), the Court was faced with an 18-year-old administrative interpretation of the statute.

Application of Francis N. Apel, Louis B. Conte and Howard L. Bender

342 F.2d 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1965

Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chem. Corp., 276 U.S. 358 , 48 S.Ct. 380 , 72 L.Ed. 610 (1928). And, we might add, the same reasoning applies with equal effect to the teachings of the DeGroote reference. … The decision of the board is accordingly reversed. Reversed. . Serial No. 768,093, filed October 20, 1958.

Hackethal v. Anderson

179 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

We agree with the holding by the board that the preloading spacer and shims perform no adjustment in causing relative movement of the parts of the combination. … The board stated that even if intended to be used but once, the adjusting means has its purpose, citing Page v. Holmes Burglar Alarm Telegraph Company, C.C.S.D.N.Y.1880, 1 F. 304, 319, 320 .

Freund Mayer & Co. v. United States

39 C.C.P.A. 123 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1952

In the case of United States v. Fuld & Co., 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 234 , T. D. 33476, 24 Treas. … This court, in effect, in the case of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States, supra, so held.

In re Barsky

62 F.2d 192 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

Pickering et al. v. McCullough et al., 104 U. S. 310 ; Robbins v. Steinbart, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1069, 57 F. (2d) 378. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Braren v. Horner

49 F.2d 984 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

In this connection, the following authorities are thought to be in point: Guarantee Company, etc. v. Phenix Ins. Co. (C. C. C.) 124 F. 170 ; Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Co. (C. C. A.) 154 F. 606 ; Smart v. Wright (C. C. … A.) 227 F. 84 ; Millward v. Vulcan Furnace, etc. (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 78 .

Gibbs v. Wohl

67 F.2d 908 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 23, 1933

Appellants have appealed here from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office awarding priority of the two counts involved to the appellee. … was proper, and we furthermore concur in its view that there is nothing in Bissell v.

Vandegrift & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 112 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1919

The case is here upon appeal from that decision of the board. … So, in Fabbri v. Murphy ( 5 Otto, 95 U.

United States v. Baumgarten & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 321 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

Justice Gray in the case of Tutton v. Viti ( 108 U. … In this view of the case, the decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

United States v. Schneider Bros. & Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 16 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

Leather: All leather not specially provided for; harness, * * * finished or unfinished, and not specially provided for; * * * The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed. … Maddock v. Magone, 152 U. S. 368 at p. 371 . *18 Harness, as used in paragraph 1606, commonly means the equipment put upon a draft animal in order that it may draw, move, or pull a vehicle, implement, or weight.