Case law

Johnson Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 626 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

The case cited was an appeal from a classification board in which the validity of an appraisement was questioned. … United States v. Johnson, supra, can not be properly considered as authority in the case before us.

In Re John M. Saari and William C. Wiley

386 F.2d 909 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 24, 1967

In order to grasp more significantly the meaning of this language as used in the claim, it is necessary to consider certain portions of *736 appellants’ specification, as we must under United States v. … Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the board affirming claim 9.

American Chicle Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 26, 1918

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the assessment as made and the importers appeal. A commodity at least very similar to this, if not identical with it, was considered by this court in Sheldon & Co. v. … In the case of Sheldon & Co. v.

United States v. Merck & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the. pro test and the Government appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of James D. Wilson

439 F.2d 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1971

The board found it necessary only to express its conclusion that the examiner did not err in holding the claimed subject matter obvious. … Plainly this is not evidence of commercial success that can be afforded significance in the determination of obviousness under the principles discussed in Graham v.

United States v. Bird

16 Ct. Cust. 306 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1928

D. 32982; United States v. Thomas, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 142 , T. D. 32385; Gump v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 137 , T. D. 32384; and McBride v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. … United States v. Thomas, supra. See also Kronfeld v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 60 , T. D. 33308.

Application of Montgomery

214 F.2d 136 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1954

In this latter respect, the board was of the opinion that patentability could not be predicated on the mere arrangement of printed matter. … See In re Clark, 58 F.2d 455 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1166; In re Sterling, supra; Conover v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. 144 , 99 F.2d 377 ; and In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140 , 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 730.

Edgar Allen Steel Co. v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 26 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1928

United States v. Marx, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 152, 155 ; Paulina v. United States, 7 Cranch 52, 60 ; Lewis v. United States, 92 U. S. 618, 621 ; Thornley v. United States, 113 U. S. 310, 313 ; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. … This court, on appeal, affirmed the board and held that the conjunction “and” should be interpreted as if it had been written “or,” citing the case of American Colortype Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust.

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.

Application of Ferdinand Markert, Willibald Funk, Gottfried Richter and Otto Frey

396 F.2d 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1968

General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corporation, 304 U.S. 364, 369 , 58 S.Ct. 899 , 82 L.Ed. 1402 (1938). … We therefore affirm the board’s decision as to the obviousness of appellants’' invention as claimed in appealed claims 4-9 as they here appear in the record. Affirmed. 1 . The board consisted of Mr.

Kropa v. Robie

187 F.2d 150 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1951

The board’s award of priority of invention to ap-pellees must stand, and the decision appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed. APPENDIX to KROPA v. ROBIE et al., P.A. 5725, Interference No. 82,123. A. … Marden et al. v. Braselton 28 1077 119 174 49 256 An ultraviolet lamp 33. Bartsch v.

Wanamaker v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 27 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

In this connection see Wimpfheimer & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 546 , T. D. 40739. The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is afiirmed.

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 .

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.

Application of Rollin H. Spelman and George W. Anderson

301 F.2d 945 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

While we do not think the record expressly supports the first interpretation of the board, we are in complete agreement with the second reason it advances. *947 The board’s position on the second feature is stated as follows … Associated with those contentions is reliance on the proposition that narrow improvements, as well as pioneer inventions, which advance the art, are entitled to patent protection, citing Diamond Rubber Company of New York v.

Romine v. Hodges

70 F.2d 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 23, 1934

Jung, Jr., v. William M. Scholl, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 805, 37 F. (2d) 761. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. ■

In re Freeman

154 F.2d 159 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

See Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E. Carr Co., 217 Fed. 400, 405 ; Railroad Supply Co. v. Hart Steel Co. et al., 222 Fed. 261, 272 ; Benjamin Bernard Deitel v. Reich-Ash Corporation and Butler F. Greer, 13 U. S. Pat. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Bland, J., dissents.

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.

General Foods Corporation v. E-Z Spuds, Inc.

311 F.2d 580 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

The board found also that the opposer has since about 1949 used the word “KRINKLES” at various times alone or as a component of several trademarks for dry rice cereal. … Carlisle Shoe Co. v. Societe Anonyme: Roger Fare & Cie, 278 F.2d 519 , 47 CCPA 966. Under such circumstances, we must reverse the decision appealed from. Reversed. 1 .

Slimaker Dress Corporation v. Wardrobe Maker, Inc.

377 F.2d 1017 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

377 F.2d 1017 SLIMAKER DRESS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. WARDROBE MAKER, INC., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7799. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. May 25, 1967. … See United States Time Corp. v.