Case law

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.

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.

United States v. Bernard

3 Ct. Cust. 503 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

The protest of the importers was sustained by tbe Board of General Appraisers, from which decision the Government now appeals. In the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329 ; T. … In conformity with this rule the decision of the board is reversed.

Headley Asphalt Division v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 427 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1937

SUPPLIES AND STORES RETAINED ON BOARD. … In the case of United States v. Field & Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 406 , T.

In re Stover

133 F.2d 919 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

In this connection he cites the case of Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Leo Price

302 F.2d 741 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1962

.” *744 In affirming, the board held that, as a minimum, claim 6 required that “at least one guide block and at least one spacer block * * * have openings, as recited.” … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. MARTIN, Judge, sat but did not participate in decision because of illness. 1 . The patent appears to have had six claims. It was sued on in Winslow Mfg. Co. v.

Application of Patzer

201 F.2d 942 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1953

Other claims were involved in the appeal from the decision of the examiner to the board, but upon motion of counsel for appellant the appeal as to them was dismissed by the board and they are not before us. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Jones

6 Ct. Cust. 135 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1915

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. The Government appeals. … We think the board did not err, and accordingly the decision is affirmed.

In re Hueber

70 F.2d 906 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1934

In Grinnell Washing Machine Co. v. … As we find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals, the same is affirmed.

Sheldon v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 516 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1916

In the case of Helwig v. United States ( 188 U. … But as to this question, see Burgess v. Salmon ( 97 U. S., 381 ).

Application of Harry Dudley Wright

393 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1968

Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 , 14 S.Ct. 310 , 38 L.Ed. 121 (1894). 31 Thus, the analysis required was whether "one invention" had been twice claimed. … See in re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 775 , 51 CCPA 919, 926 (1964); Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, 201 F.2d 624, 633 (9th Cir. 1953).

In re Colianni

561 F.2d 220 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 15, 1977

The board here questioned appellant’s disclosure by noting that there was no “teaching concerning an operative range of the desired frequency of ultrasonic energy, its duration or its intensity.” … Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1391 , 58 CCPA 1366, 1372, 170 USPQ 276 , 279 (1971).

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.

Johnson v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 63 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

This court, in United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 410 ; T. D. 32998), and in United States v. Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419 ; T. … In accordance with that opinion the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Hillier's Son Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

It was claimed in the protest and held by the Board of General Appraisers to be free of duty under the provision for “resins, not specially provided for,” contained in paragraph 1584 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which reads … In the case of Hirzel v.

United States v. Altman

13 Ct. Cust. 299 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

The question presented in this case has been decided by this court in the case of United States v. Dodge, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 222 , T. D. 41176. … We think the board reached the right conclusion and its judgment is affirmed.

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.

In re Moore

54 F.2d 958 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1932

We are not convinced that there was error in the decision of the Board of Appeals. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of John P. Farquhar and Frank F. Crandell

305 F.2d 887 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

The rejection, affirmed by the Board of Appeals, was based upon a U. S. patent to Weidert, No. 1,545,869, issued July 14, 1925. … These facts clearly distinguish the present case from the case of Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 , 43 S.Ct. 322 , 67 L.Ed. 523 , upon which appellants have placed reliance.

Soule v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 524 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1929

Judge Colt in Birtwell v. … The Board of General Appraisers, in T. D. 19198 (G.