Case law

United States v. Janson Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 315 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1928

In the case cited, the Board of General Appraisers had held these various parts to be parts of a machine and dutiable as manufactures of metal. … Dec. 706 , the Board of General Appraisers had under consideration certain loud speakers for radio receiving sets.

Application of Harold R. Luce

304 F.2d 899 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 11, 1962

In re Porter [ 68 F.2d 971 ], 21 C.C.P.A. 927 ; Richards v. Chase Elevator Company, 159 U.S. 477 [ 16 S.Ct. 53 , 40 L.Ed. 225 ]; In re Trester, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 642, 36 F.(2[d]) 133. … In asking us to reverse the board, appellant argues that the board applied a “hindsight" standard of invention, and stresses what is allegedly commercial success of his mat. We see no merit in either contention.

United States v. Rice

5 Ct. Cust. 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

The board held this was a manifest clerical error. We are unable to agree that such transactions constitute a manifest clerical error. This court, in an opinion filed herewith, United States v. Nozaki Bros. ( 5 Ct. … (Stairs v. Peaslee, supra.)

In re Launder

222 F.2d 371 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1955

Gleason v. Dosch et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1012, 39 P. (2d) 687 , 5 USPQ 462 . … This is especially so in this case since it appears from the record that applicants never presented the foregoing argument to the examiner or to the board.

Application of Obermeyer

181 F.2d 210 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

Instead, the board held that the affidavits in question were effective to establish utility for appellants’ composition. … Gelardin v. Revlon Products Corporation et al., 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 910 .

Rexall Drug Company v. Manhattan Drug Company

284 F.2d 391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1960

284 F.2d 391 REXALL DRUG COMPANY, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN DRUG COMPANY, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6592. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. December 8, 1960. Richard A. Mahar, Washington, D. C. … For these reasons, we reverse the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 7 Reversed.

In re Flude

159 F.2d 878 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

Broos v. Barton, 31 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1089, 142 F. (2d) 690, 61 USPQ 447 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is accordingly affirmed. ■

Stirn v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 47 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

The protest was heard upon evidence by the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled, from which decision the importers now appeal. … The court therefore concludes that the appellants are entitled to the relief which they seek, and the decision of the board is reversed.

In re Kniel

169 F.2d 820 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1948

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of- Appeals- of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting all of the claims … See General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 . Claim 4 depends upon claim 3 but calls for a definite reflux ratio. No such ratio is suggested by the prior art.

Application of Jesse T. Dunn and Alex E. Brodhag, Jr

349 F.2d 433 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 22, 1965

The board erred in lumping the claims together without regard for the specific limitations of the claims as compared to the teachings of the art. We reverse the board as to claims 28 and 34. … We agree with the solicitor that it cannot be considered here since it is not part of the record in this appeal, nor was it passed on by the board.

Consmiller v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 109 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1920

The board overruled the protest and the case is here on importer's appeal. In United States v. Swedish Produce Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Quaintance v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 215 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

United States v. Rusch ( 214 U. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Murphy & Stevenson (Inc.) v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

Appls. 213 ; Sargent Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 462 ; Comstock & Theakston v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 502 . … The judgment of the Board- of General Appraisers is affirmed.

White v. Trube

84 F.2d 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1936

Furthermore, we find nothing of record to indicate even remotely that counsel for appellee would stoop to such an artifice. *1281 We are not unmindful of the rule announced in the case of Schwartz v. Graenz, 23 C. C. P. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Danilo Santini and George MacRedis v. Raymond A. Burgy, Walter A. Nikazy and Ernest B. Thurston

318 F.2d 344 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1963

Appellants argue that one copying a claim from a patent must disclose every element of the claim and that, in the words of Brand v. Thomas, 96 F.2d 301 , 25 CCPA 1053. … We do not think appellants have sustained this burden and we think the decision of the board was correct. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

Application of George P. Moran, Frank A. Fedosh and Carl A. Maxwell

394 F.2d 595 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 28, 1967

Our consideration of the record in the light of the arguments leaves us satisfied that the board’s decision is free from reversible error. … The rejection is not contrary to United States v. Adams et al., 383 U.S. 39 , 86 S.Ct. 708 , 15 L.Ed.2d 572 , as urged by appellants.

Sellers v. Cronite Co.

45 C.C.P.A. 27 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 13, 1957

Sellers v. United States, 12 Treas. Dec. 448 , T. … Sellers v. United States, 4 Cust.

Application of Tate

189 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1951

Beat ’Em All Barbed-Wire Co.) 143 U.S. 275 , 12 S.Ct. 443 , 36 L.Ed. 154 ; Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597, 608 , 15 S.Ct. 194 , 39 L.Ed. 275 ; Gordon v. … Co. v. David Buttrick Co., 1 Cir., 127 F.2d 888 .

United States v. Hirsh

8 Ct. Cust. 163 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1917

In United States v. … v.

In re Mercier

173 F.2d 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1949

Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U. S. 245, 256-57 ; General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., supra. … Therefore, the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office is affirmed.