Case law

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.

Matter of the Application of Linus E. Russell

239 F.2d 387 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1956

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner of the *388 single claim of appellant’s . application for a patent on a design … Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 511 , 81 U.S. 511 , 20 L.Ed. 731 ; In re Bonnell, 129 F.2d 520 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1104; In re Campbell, 212 F.2d 606 , 41 C.C.P.A., Patents, 896.

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.

In re Donaldson

138 F.2d 419 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

Among state courts apparently holding that both the first and last days should be excluded are Nebraska, McGinn v. State, 65 N. W. 46 , and Minnesota, Duncan v. Cobb, 21 N. W. 714 . However, the case of Dillon v. … The cases of Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. Willingham, Loan & Trust Company, supra, and United States v.

In re McFarlane

125 F.2d 169 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1942

June 30, 1941, the court ordered the appeal to be re-argued upon the question of the validity of rule 75 of the Rules of Practice in the Patent Office in view of the decision in the case of Electric Storage Battery Co. v. … England by such affidavits. *813 Appellant contends that his reduction to practice in England made prior to the filing date of the references is available to him under the doctrine announced in Electric Storage Battery Co. v.

Downing v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 235 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1927

The duties and limitations of the single general appraiser and of the Board of General Appraisers in reappraisement and re-reappraisement proceedings were carefully considered by this court in Johnson Co. v. … Since the statute expressly provides for a “setting forth” of the facts by the board, we think it ought to clearly set out the necessary and ultimate facts upon which its decision rests. See Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v.

Matter of the Application of Merle P. Chaplin

245 F.2d 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 4, 1957

Morgenstern v. … See, for example, Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc., v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327 , 65 S.Ct. 1143 , 89 L.Ed. 1644 ; In re Beach, 152 F.2d 981 , 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 815; H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v.

Application of Welch

213 F.2d 555 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 4, 1954

Claim 9, the sole apparatus claim of the application considered on the merits by the board, was rejected as being un-patentable over Upson of record. … On the contrary, we are of the opinion that what the appellant presents herein is more in harmony with the reason for the holding of the court in Atlantic Works v.

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.

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.

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

Bache v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1929

The board there said that certain facts “may bring it (the glass) within paragraphs 221 and 224.” (Italics, ours.) … dismissed the protest. *278 The Government has directed our attention to several cases relating to colored glass, or glass colored, particularly the case of United States v.

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.

In re Spencer

47 F.2d 806 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31 ; Gray Tel. Pay Sta. v. Baird, 174 Fed. 417 ; Johns-Pratt Co. v. Free man., 201 Fed. 356 , aff. in Freeman v. Johns-Pratt Co., 204 Fed. 288 . … (Patents) 1009, 39 F. (2d) 681; Beleetasine Patents Co. v. Prest-O-Graph Co., 267 Fed. 840 ; Permutit Co. v. Harvey Laundry Co., 274 Fed. 937 ; Warren Bros. v. Owasso, 166 Fed. 309 .

Florida Avocado Growers Exchange v. United States

71 F.2d 309 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1934

United States v. Payne, 8 Fed. 883 , 2 McCrary 289 ; Latiimer v. Poteet, 14 Pet. 4 . … United States v. American Sugar Co., 202 U.S. 563; Faber, Coe & Gregg, Inc. v. United States, 19 C.C.P.A.

Application of Douglas H. Moreton

288 F.2d 708 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 15, 1961

In Example V tricresyl phosphate is stated to be itself a lubricant which can be used alone as a crankcase lubricant, or in any desired proportion with a mineral oil of the desired viscosity. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Goggins

86 F.2d 419 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1936

In Grinnell Washing Machine Co. v. Johnson Co., 247 U. … Again, stating the doctrine which it had followed since Hailes v.

United States v. Koscherak Bros.

9 Ct. Cust. 190 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1919

The motion to dismiss was denied by the board and the Government appealed. … On the authority of United States v. C. Willenborg & Co. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 187 ; T.

Avery v. Hilder

99 F.2d 979 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1938

Avery contends that in view of the practice followed in the Kitselman v. Reid, 1920 C. D. 26; Morgan v. Drake, 1930, C. D. 118, 36 F. (2d) 511 and Hopkins v. Newman, 1908 C. D. 395; 30 App. D. … Bates v. Coe, 98 U.

F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. v. The United States

425 F.2d 781 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1970

See United States v. Nichols Copper Co., 29 CCPA 186, 191, C.A.D. 190 (1941). … Myers & Co., Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust.Ct. 312 , C.D. 3751.