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 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.

Thomas & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

The board was of the opinion that the importer had failed to make a case. … This failure of proof is fatal to the •appellant’s contention under our decision in Pritchard v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 247 ; T. D. 31974).

Lawson v. Davis

29 C.C.P.A. 1217 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1942

Hall v. Genzo Shimadzu, 19 C. C. P. A. … Overmire v. Fahrenwald, 277 F. 618 . Nor can it be said that simiplieity or obviousness of application is sufficient to excuse the lack of a satisfactory demonstration of utility, Hadley v.

In re Crews

36 F.2d 135 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 151 . See also In Re McNeil and Sturtevant, C. D. 1907, p. 478, 28 App. D. C. 451. Burt v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Raymond G. Roshong

285 F.2d 819 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1961

The single reference relied on by the board is Bullard 2,565,590 August 28, 1951. … Hall v. Shimadzu, 59 F.2d 225 , 19 CCPA 1288; Kropa v. Robie et al., 187 F.2d 150 , 38 CCPA 858.

Application of Raymond J. Heldt

433 F.2d 808 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1970

V. Lupo, Washington, D. C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. … Suffice it to say that we agree with the board that the evidence provided by these affidavits does not outweigh the prima facie case of obviousness made out by the references. 21 The board's decision is affirmed. 22 Affirmed

Armour and Company v. Emery Industries, Inc.

433 F.2d 821 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1970

433 F.2d 821 ARMOUR AND COMPANY, Appellant, v. EMERY INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 8382. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. November 19, 1970. … App., 419 F.2d 1331 (1970), cited by the appellant, we find no error in the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 156 USPQ 689 (1968). 2 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.

Mills & Gibb Corp. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 197 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

In Wilson & Son, Inc., v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 234 , T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) is affirmed.

United States v. McQuade

16 Ct. Cust. 334 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1928

A. 4865), decided by the Board of General Appraisers in 1901. … We held, in Bertrose Co. v.

United States v. Hirsh

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

In United States v. … v.

In re Mitchel

102 F.2d 868 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

General Electric Co. v. Hoskins Mfg. Co., 224 Fed. 464 ; George Frost Co. v. Samstag, 180 Fed. 739 ; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486 ; Fairbanks Wood Rim Co. v. … Moore, 78 Fed. 490 ; Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. Kalle et ad., 94 Fed. 163 ; Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 ; Wickelman v. A. B. Dick Co., 88 Fed. 264 ; Edison Electric Light Co. 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.

Application of Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc

435 F.2d 594 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1971

This is an appeal, from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which affirmed the action of the Examiner of Trademarks in refusing to register appellant’s mark. … See: King-Kup Candies, Inc. v. King Candy Company, [48 CCPA 948, 288 F.2d 944 ] 129 USPQ 272 (CCPA, 1961).

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.

Osterman v. Salb

95 F.2d 508 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1938

Jameson v. Ellsworth, 40 App. D. C. 164. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Konishi Kotakudo Co. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1929

United States, supra, and United States v. Dudley, supra, decided in 1888 and 1889, respectively, both written by Mr. Justice Brown) which were the basis of this court’s early decisions. … See also Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U. S. 337 .

United States v. Union Olive Oil Co.

38 C.C.P.A. 73 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1950

Skourtsis v. United States, T. D. 48218, together with , an official sample of the merchandise involved in the instant case, and rested. … The color of the involved olives, as appears from the exhibits, is light brown.

In re Saari

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 appellants’ specification, as we must under United States v. … Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the board affirming claim 9. *917 On the other hand, I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the decision of the board as to claim 10 for the reasons stated in the majority opinion