Case law

In re Kaser

64 F.2d 687 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1933

The board cites certain decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the first of which, as given in the brief of the Solicitor for the Patent Office, is Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is afirmed.

Stoeger v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1927

The Government has pointed out that there was no attempt, at any time, to show chief use of the pistols as side arms in the United States of America, and cite Taylor et al. v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. … The board held that they were dutiable as side arms under the tariff act of 1897, which contained no provision for pistols. It was, there, a choice between side arms and a less applicable paragraph.

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.

Warner v. United States

28 C.C.P.A. 143 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1940

SUPPLIES AND STORES RETAINED ON BOARD. … Kelly & Co. v. United States and American Mail Line, Ltd. 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 Blondiau

181 F.2d 223 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

As said so long ago- by the Supreme Court in Smith v. … See also Lehman v. Ripley et al., 8 Cir., 1925, 3 F.2d 518 . Achievements which result from trial and error experimentation are the product of a routineer and not an inventor, Rembert et al. v.

Application of Marlan E. Bourns

252 F.2d 579 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1958

exercised in the combining of prior art features to produce a new result and that a change only in form, proportions or degree is not ordinarily patentable. 17 In the recent case of United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc., v. … States District Court for the District of Rhode Island held that a substantial innovation, for which society is indebted to the inventor, must be disclosed to support the issuance of a patent, citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.

United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. Compo Shoe MacHinery Corp.

56 F.2d 292 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 29, 1932

We said in Model Brassiere Co., Inc., v. … Elishewitz v. Leyser Green Co., supra.” In Elishewitz v. Leyser Green Co., 47 App. D.

Hygeia Antiseptic Toothpick Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the collector’s assess- ■ ment. … Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. S., 555 ).

General Precision, Inc. v. Tab T. Thein, by Change of Name From Tibor J. Thein, D.B.A. Lib-Re-Search Service

328 F.2d 627 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

328 F.2d 627 GENERAL PRECISION, INC., Appellant, v. Tab T. THEIN, by Change of Name from Tibor J. Thein, d.b.a. Lib-Re-Search Service, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7152. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. … The board goes on to say: 9 "The nature of applicant's services can be readily ascertained from his advertising material which is primarily directed to students.

In re Varga

463 F.2d 1101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 27, 1972

Thornton discloses carding apparatus shown in the drawing, with parts broken away, as follows: g@S^\ ) -_-I iff N (¿) ///V J j Vr¿X^r-r-. / /''' A card stripper C is rotated at a suitable surface speed to strip carded fiber … They liken the situation here to that in the classic Eibel Process Co. v.

In re Rodman

53 F.2d 895 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1931

The reasoning in De Forest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U. S. 664 , we think is controlling of the decision in this case. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Adolf Sickbert

395 F.2d 798 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1968

Moreover, each of the references bears evidence of the scope and content of the prior art, Graham v. … The board consisted of Messrs. Asp and Magil, Examiners-in-Chief, and Stone, Acting Examiner-in-Chief. Mr. Magil wrote the decision of the board.

Smith & Nichols (Inc.) v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 16 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

However, this court in a series of cases, including Bradford Co. and United States v. American Lithographic Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 318 , T. D. 40318; United States v. Martorelli, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 327 , T. … D. 40483; Hobe Button Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 341 , T.

Fischer v. Avery

90 F.2d 114 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1937

(Patents) 971, 47 F. (2d) 358, Dreyfus v. Lilienfeld, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1539, 49 F. (2d) 1062, Schweyer v. Thomas, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 859, 68 F. (2d) 953, and Standard Oil Company (Indiana) et al. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Dalton H. Pritchard v. Donald Richman

360 F.2d 236 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1966

As noted by the board, the crux of the common invention of the parties lies in the matrixing. … Smith v. Wehn, 318 F.2d 325 , 50 CCPA 1544; Chedaker v. Lo, 318 F.2d 333 , 50 CCPA 1556.

Goodman v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 112 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1911

Under the law as it previously existed, it was held by the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 27888) and on appeal by the United States Circuit Court and Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Berlinger (167 Fed. … It is true that in the case of United States v. Stearns (79 Fed.

Sure-Fit Products Company v. Saltzson Drapery Company

254 F.2d 158 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1958

Shoe Company, Inc. v. … Pats.); Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. Wright, 46 F.2d 711 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 937.

Johnson Iron Works Ltd. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 268 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1921

If the two alleged boilers were substantially complete, it is not denied that under the authority of United States v. Outerbridge ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223 ; T. D. 36511), they are-dutiable. … See also Toledo Ship Building Co. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 342 ; T. D. 37609); United States v. Reid & Co. ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 85 ; T. D. 38357).

In re Smyser

135 F.2d 747 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1943

(Patents) 859, 81 F. (2d) 402, and Robert et al. v. Krementz, 243 Fed. 877 . … In support of their contention, counsel cite the case of Anilin and Fabrik v. Hamilton Manufacturing Company, 1878 C. D. 185, 188 (C. C. Mass.), and Robinson on Patents, pp. 414-416, section 694.