Case law

Application of Sigurd I. Lindell

385 F.2d 453 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1967

Possibly the board here used the phrase in this sense. We prefer to rest our decision, however, on the board’s formal adoption of the examiner’s straightforward finding of obviousness. … This “obvious to try” language was repeated several times in the board’s opinion.

In re Irmscher

150 F.2d 705 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1945

It is obvious that Brown permits and contemplates the exercise of the faculty of observing and thereby determining the desired quantities of groups and their manual removal for packing, and the Board of Appeals was right … See Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U. S. 84, 90-92 .

Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Sam B. Wolf Sons Co.

39 F.2d 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

v. … Hygeia Sparkling Distilled Water Co., 63 Fed. 438 ; *924 President Suspender Co. v. MacWilliam, 238 Fed. 159 ; MacWilliam v. President Suspender Co., 242 O. G. 255, 46 App. D. C. 45; Arkell Safety Bag Co. v.

Butler Bros. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 90 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1919

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest, and the importers appeal. The several paragraphs just cited read as follows: 78. … The decision of the board is accordingly affirmed.

In re Mott

557 F.2d 266 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1977

This type of means is clearly disclosed in Brown and to simply adapt the teaching of Brown to Leutwyler would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. [Emphasis ours.] … The drawing shows an automatic shutoff valve assembly V installed in a string of well production tubing T which extends downwardly through a well casing C set in a well bore W.

United States v. Merck & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 171 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1917

Ev., pt. 3, c. 1; Fremont v. United States, 17 How., 542, 557 ; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S., 37, 42 ; State v. Wagner, 61 Maine, 178.) [Italics ours.] And in Brown et al. v. Piper ( 91 U. … Justice Swayne, in Brown v.

Metz & Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

S. 120 ; Lowrie v. Meldrum Co., 124 Fed. 761 ; Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383 ; Schmieder v. Barney, 113 U. S. 645 . … In United States v. Johnson, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 258 ; Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T. D. 40861; Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T.

In re Cormany

476 F.2d 998 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 19, 1973

Priority was awarded to Brown. … The board said: Brown being prior to appellants with a composition wherein the epoxide is butylene oxide, the only issue is the obviousness of substituting the closely related homologous epoxide propylene oxide.

Scaramelli v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1924

It was furthermore expressly enjoined by tbe act that no appeal to any court could be taken by either party from sucb a decision of tbe board in re-reappraisement.—United States v. Loeb & Schoenfeld Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. … —United States v. Brown & Roese ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 382 ; T. D. 35922); Brown & Co. v. United States (12 id. 93; T. D. 40026). The Government’s motion is therefore sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

Dow Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1922

The clay is brown in color as shown by the samples. … —Butler Bros. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 90 ; T. D. 37947).

Application of James M. Denny and Sven A. Carlsson

397 F.2d 1020 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1968

The examiner and board agreed that it would be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to change the design of the studs in Brown’s structure to be like those of Schwartz. Appellants do not dispute this aspect of the rejection. … The drawing in the Brown patent is unclear.

In re Day

118 F.2d 352 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1941

The Board of Appeals held that the process disclosed by Brown is broadly the equivalent of the process here claimed. … The board further held that the Brown patent is sufficiently suggestive of the rises for gears of the processes shown by the references Bissell, Stoffel, et ah, Klopp, and Kinzel to negative invention in such use.

Application of Angelo E. Bartlett and Elwood J. Fletcher

300 F.2d 942 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1962

In fact what the court said, though not presented as a quotation, is a quotation from Shoemaker’s section 46, the first section in his Chapter V, on novelty. … For example, one tile has a light brown base color and the smeared blobs are of white, two darker shades of brown, and olive; another tile has a light gray base color and -the smeared blobs are of black, brown, olive, yellow

Koechl v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 316 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1912

down in Movius & Son v. … In Zinkheisen v. -United States (167 Ned.

Hradel v. Griffith

367 F.2d 851 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1966

Rimbach v. … The board cited Seeley v. Rennick, 50 CCPA 1214, 314 F. 2d 577 , 137 USPQ 56 and Triplett v. Steinmuyer, 29 CCPA 1243, 129 F. 2d 869 , 54 USPQ 409 . We do not feel they are applicable in this case.

Application of Arthur E. Troiel

274 F.2d 944 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1960

To support this position, the board cited Buchner et al. and Brown as illustrative of the convergent side edge feature and Popple and Buchner et al. as exemplary of the arcuate cross section feature, all used in their respective … Although the board added to the record of this case the Buchner et al., Brown and Popple patents, they did not consider the use of those references to involve a new ground of rejection within the meaning of Rule 196(b), 35

Application of Wilfred Roland Soucy

378 F.2d 374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 5, 1967

Though cognizant of the fact that Browne’s spring means operates by flexure and not tensile force, the board agreed with the examiner, noting that * * * the Marks’ Handbook citation establishes that a metallic element when … The board, however, also felt the claimed subject matter to be obvious in view of Browne under 35 U.S.C. § 103 , stating: * * * In Browne, Figures 1 and 3, a spring 20 interlocks in a groove of the molded body, and completely

Fish v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1924

sixty days next after the entry of such decree or judgment, and not afterwards, apply to the Court of Customs Appeals for a review of the questions of law and fact involved in such decision. * * * In Brown & Co. et al. v … In United States v.

Application of Herman Hoeksema

399 F.2d 269 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 8, 1968

DuPont de Ne-mours & Co. v. … In Phillips Petroleum Co. v.

Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 93 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

Therefore the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed. We find also that the highest authority, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Downing ( 201 U. … Tiffany v.