Case law

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.

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.

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 .

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

Hensel v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 117 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1912

Reiche v. Smythe ( 80 U. S., 162 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Alfano v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1927

It is agreed that practically the same issue was before the Board of General Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court, in Meadows, Wye & Co. v. United States, reported in T. D. 40481, G. … As further indicating the views of this court in cases involving similar issues, reference is made to Bing & Co. v. United States, supra; Carter & Son v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 253 ; United States v.

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

71 F.2d 438 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1934

The case is clearly ruled by Carey & Skinner v. United States, supra, and the cases cited therein. Especially applicable are United States v. Scanlan, 5 Cust. App.-290, T. D. 34473, and United States v. … This court held the exaction to be a duty, and that the Board of General Appraisers had completo jurisdiction.

Lang v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 199 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

The protest was submitted upon evidence to the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled, from which decision the importer now appeals. … In the case of Petry v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 348 ; T.

Application of Vietas

197 F.2d 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1952

In its decision, appellant’s device is succinctly described by the board as follows: “The application discloses a detachable cleat for an athletic shoe. … in resemblance to that of appellant’s device, are not operative and fail to produce the results sought and, therefore, are not a valid anticipation, citing in support of that contention the case of General Electric Co. v.

Davis v. Isham

71 F.2d 204 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

The case of Holland Furniture Company v. Perkins Glue Company, 277 U.S. 245 , is cited as “ the leading decision of the Supreme Court ” having a bearing upon the question. … It is onr opinion that the Board of Appeals reached the correct result in the case, and its decision is affirmed.

Janette v. Persons

38 F.2d 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1930

The device shown by Persons’s application is an alleged improvement upon the 3-float mechanism described in said Janette v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is therefore afp/rmed.

Wietzel v. Lacy

39 F.2d 672 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

In Petersen v. Thomas, 56 App. D. … We are not convinced that there was error in the decision of the Board of Appeals, and the same is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

McKay v. Kellogg

120 F.2d 363 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1941

See Murphy v. Meissner, 24 App. D. C. 260; Lloyd v. Antisdel, 1901 C. D. 371, 375; Barrett v. Harter, 1904 C. D. 392; Larkin v. Richardson, 1906 C. D. 209; Ohlsen v. Harmer, 1909 C. D. 220; Engle v. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx and Company, Inc., and Linemar Co., Inc

280 F.2d 437 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1960

The simulation of matchboxes is carried to the extent of using yellow labels on the front and back, printed in red and black ink, coloring the ends and one side dark blue, and coloring one side reddish brown to look like … With respect to the container being a part of the goods, attention is called to Minneapolis Brewing Company v.

United States v. Manahan Chemical Co.

23 C.C.P.A. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1936

See Thoits v. Byxbee, 167 Pac. 166 ; Curtis v. Wortsman, 26 Fed. 36 ; Cole v. Donovan, 64 N. W. 741 ; Culver v. People, 43 N. E. 812, 814 ; City of St. Louis v. R. J. Gunning Co., 39 S. W. 788 . … We deem it unnecessary to discuss the issues in the cases of Jonesboro City v. Cairo and St. Louis R. R. Co., supra, and McKean v.

In re Waugh

135 F.2d 627 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

Except in particulars hereinafter referred to, the references seem to be sufficiently described in the decisions of the examiner and the board. … A case which seems to be particularly in point here is Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 200 .

Application of Roberts

179 F.2d 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1949

The edges of those members are V-shaped, and as they come together they pinch the projecting rubber on itself, thus forming what is said to be an effective seam and pinching off the surplus rubber. … For the reasons hereinbefore set forth; the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.