Case law

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.

Application of Robert D. Broadley

404 F.2d 616 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1968

The board agreed. Appellant contends here, as below, that notbia? “ P"" ar* ^ reco"d gests that CH2F2 and C2.F? … See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, Mo., 383 U.S. 1, 17 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 . 7 .

Kuttoff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 176 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

The Government appealed to the Board of General Appraisers. … Sandoz Chemical Works v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 466 , T. D. 41366; Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 299 .

In re Spitzglass

96 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1938

Co. v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 217 Fed. 775 . … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Mulholland

156 F.2d 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1946

(Patents) 726, 115 F. (2d) 249, 47 USPQ 265 ; Vickery v. Barnhart, 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 979, 118 F. (2d) 578, 49 USPQ 106 . … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Downing v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 287 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers affirmed the collector’s classification. In United States v. American Express Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 494 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Duluth

7 Ct. Cust. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1916

Kidd v. Flagler ( 54 Fed., 367 ). … It may again be noted that the board made no finding upon this subject.

American Security Bank v. American Security & Trust Co.

571 F.2d 564 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1978

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), 190 USPQ 271 (1976), dismissing an opposition to the registration of AMERICAN SECURITY BANK on application serial … cited the following decisions: Vacuum-Electronics Corp. v.

Applied Research and Development Corporation v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation

371 F.2d 895 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1967

371 F.2d 895 APPLIED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. LILY-TULIP CUP CORPORATION, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7753. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. February 9, 1967. Francis D. … Although some of the common purchasers, e. g., vending machine operators, might well be termed discriminating buyers, the competing goods are, as the board points out, also sold to the general public.

Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 317 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1924

(Inc.) v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261 ; T. D. 40269), which is controlling in the case. … The case is therefore remanded to the Board of General Appraisers-to enable it to make its findings of facts and conclusions of law as in the statute provided.

Littlejohn & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1919

A similar question was presented and fully discussed in an opinion by Barber, Judge, in Vandegrift & Co. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 1 ; T. D. 37121). … We think in the present case there is not such a showing, at the most, as would justify us in overruling the conclusion reached by the board. The decision will stand affirmed.

Application of Robert Rex Downie

368 F.2d 1014 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1966

The reason for this peculiar down-tilting position is apparent from inspection; it is simply that the front end of the key, being narrower than the rear end, at the bottom face or any other level, must sink lower in the V-shaped … For the above reasons, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. SMITH, J., concurs in the result.

United States v. McCord Brady Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1917

In the first, Wright & Graham Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 453 ; T. … Accordingly the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is modified.

Henry Pollak (Inc.) v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 219 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 10, 1930

inch by the Mullen or the Webb test, 20 per centum ad valorem; stereotype-matrix mat or board, 35 per centum ad va-lorem; wall pockets, composed wholly or in chief value of paper, papier-máché or paper board, whether or … Mason Bros. & Co., supra; Schloss Co. v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 459 , T. D. 33038; United States v. McCoy Co. et al., 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 396 , T. D. 33838; United States v. Bush & Co. et al., 4 Ct. Cust.

Les Parfums de Molyneux v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1939

In the case of Bartlett v. Kane, 57 U. … Beals v. Hale, 45 U. S. 36 ( 4 How. 37 ); 11 L. ed. 865; Pollard v. Bailey, 87 U. S. (20 Wall) 520, 525; 22 L. ed. 376; United States v. Boisdore, 49 U. S. (8 How.) 113, 121 ; 12 L. ed. 1009; Costanzo v.

Application of John B. Dwyer, Joseph W. Jewell, William B. Johnson, Henry G. McGrath and Louis C. Rubin

317 F.2d 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1963

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8 in appellants’ application 1 entitled “Reforming of Gaseous Hydrocarbons” as unpatentable over the prior … are used, and if those velocities are expressed in units of “methane equivalent” volume /vc/hr. the units employed by appellants in their claims, the space velocity of ethane would be 800 volumes of methane equivalent /v„

United States v. Gruen Watch Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 225 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1933

Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 375, 378 . … We think that decision was sound, the making of the regulation being within the power conferred by Congress by the term in section 489 "under such rules as the board may prescribe.”

In re Mixon

470 F.2d 1374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1973

See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). … Brenner v.