Case law

Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. United States

37 Cust. Ct. 129 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

United States v. McGraw Wool Co., 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 205, T. D. 45296; United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., supra; Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States, 25 Cust. Ct. 182 , C. D. 1283. … United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., 34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 112, C. A. D. 351, and United States v. Washington State Liquor Control Board, 34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 118, C. A.

United States v. Ben Felsenthal & Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1928

The Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) held to the same effect, under the same act, In re A. H. Ringk & Co., T. D. 39673, 43 Treas. Dec. 516 ; In re Gugenheim (Inc.), T. … Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202 (216); Brown, et al. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 (42); Nix v. Hedden, 149 U. S. 304 ; Austin v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 313 , T. D. 33519.

Application of Homer E. Thornhill

305 F.2d 463 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 11, 1962

Browning, Simms, Hyer & Eickenroht, Ralph R. Browning, Houston, Tex. (Fred L. Witherspoon, Jr., Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D. … KIRKPATRICK. * RICH, Judge. 1 This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 16 and 17 in application Ser.

Dirkes v. Eitzen

103 F.2d 520 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1939

103 F.2d 520 (1939) DIRKES et al. v. EITZEN. Patent Appeal No. 4054. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. May 3, 1939. *521 Eugene C. Brown, of Washington, D. C. (M. J. Reynolds and N. F. … The decisions of the Board of Appeals, holding that Eitzen and Decker, respectively, were entitled to make the counts in issue were affirmed by this Court. Dirkes et al. v. Eitzen and Dirkes et al. v.

B. Kuppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corporation

326 F.2d 820 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Celanese Corporation of America v. E. … It immediately becomes apparent that the principles set forth in Celanese Corporation of America v. E. I.

Bennett v. Fitzgerald

48 F.2d 917 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

In the ease of Paul v. Hess, 24 App. D. … Traver v. Brown, 14 App. D. C. 34, 41; Reichenbach v. Kelley, 17 App. D. C. 333, 344; Latham v. Armat, 17 App. D. C. 345.

Alden v. Bessey

109 F.2d 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1940

Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 , 23 L. Ed. 200 (202). … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Eugene Edward Magat

240 F.2d 351 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1957

The following references were relied on by the board: I. G. … As to the manipulative steps involved, Bayer states that in producing polyurethanes, “In contrast with the case of polyamides we can work in open vessels, for the admission of atmospheric oxygen does not cause any brown coloration

In re Outtrup

531 F.2d 1055 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1976

The board adopted this reasoning, commenting that appellants appeared to have admitted in their specification that the method of claim 13 was old in the art. … Appellants’ legal theory is based on In re Coker, 463 F.2d 1344 , 59 CCPA 1185 (1972); In re Sheppard, 339 F.2d 238 , 52 CCPA 859 (1964); and In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006 , 51 *1058 CCPA 1254 (1964).

United States v. Cohn Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 426 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The product is a light yellowish-brown colored body, which can be carved, planed, turned, sawn, stamped, or polished, and made either opaque or transparent. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Lisk

17 C.C.P.A. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

Richardson Co. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 179 ; Decorated Metal Mfg. Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 141 ; Nyman & Sheets v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 434 . See also Kahlen v. … We think the opinion in the case, of Hagen & Co. v. United States, decided by the Customs Court, then known as the Board of Appraisers, *238 May 10, 1915, Abstract 37755, 28 Treas.

In re Taborsky

502 F.2d 775 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 29, 1974

References The examiner and the board relied on four prior art references: (1) Schraufstatter and Gonnert [Schraufstatter], U.S. … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. .

Cellas (Inc.) v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 10, 1930

D. 40665, which was decided by the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States-Customs Court) on February 6, 1925. … United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corp., 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 329, 333, T. D. 43776; United States v. Richard Hudnut, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 463 , T. D. 42646; United States v. Post Fish Co., 13 Ct. Cust.

William A. Vogt v. Harry McFeaters

341 F.2d 315 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1965

VOGT, Appellant, v. Harry McFEATERS, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7273. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. February 18, 1965. Brown, Jackson, Boettcher & Dienner, Chicago, Ill. (John A. Dienner, Henry H. … Crome v. Morrogh, 239 F.2d 390 , 44 CCPA 704.

Corr v. Oldetyme Distillers, Inc.

118 F.2d 919 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1941

Brown and Francis H. Shields were executors of the estate of Magnus H. Brown. … C. 425; Macmahan Pharmacal Co. v. Denver Chemical Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 468 ; Kidd v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 617 .

American Manufacturing Company of Texas v. The Heald MacHine Company

385 F.2d 456 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1967

385 F.2d 456 AMERICAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF TEXAS, Appellant, v. The HEALD MACHINE COMPANY, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7807. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. November 9, 1967. Herbert J. … I do not believe the board did so.

United States v. Best & Co.

86 F.2d 23 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1936

It appears from the opinion by Judge Brown that this issue, upon a different record, was decided by the same division of the United States Customs Court in Best & Co., Inc. v. United States, T. D. 47317, 66 Treas. … et al. v.

Beuttell v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

They were on importation classified by the collector as-“rugs, similar to Axminster rugs,” under paragraph 300, sufra, which classification was on protest sustained by the Board of General! Appraisers, Mr. … Geroral Appraiser Brown disserting.

H. D. T. Company Factors, Inc. v. H. M. Sinclair, Jr., Trustee for the Ohio Partnership, the Sinclair Manufacturing Company

288 F.2d 947 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1961

COMPANY FACTORS, INC., Appellant, v. H. M. SINCLAIR, Jr., Trustee for the Ohio Partnership, The Sinclair Manufacturing Company, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6650. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. … We therefore affirm the decision of the board. 15 Affirmed.

James Akeroyd & Son v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1931

In the case of United States v. Neuman & Schwiers Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 207 , T. D. 40224, the right to amend a protest was involved. After citing the cases of Brown & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. … In the dissenting opinion of Judge Brown in the court below, reference is made to the case of United States v.