Case law

Waddell & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 188 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

Upon hearing the Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and, relying upon the authority of Waddell v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 406 ; T. D. 32989), sustained the assessment. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers 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.

Altman & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 170 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the assessment as made and the importer appeals. … This was the ruling in Stein v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 519 ; T. D. 32250).

Carl W. Walter v. George R. Ryan

397 F.2d 872 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1968

The board held he did not. We affirm, *874 though not necessarily on all of the board’s reasoning. … V, he too was making plastic apparatus.

Thomas Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 425 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1924

It has been suggested that the word “mountings” as interpreted by this court in the case of United States v. … —Bache & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 314 ; T. D. 39129) and cases therein cited.

Cheney Bros. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 195 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers held that the designs in question were not drawings as claimed by the importers, but were in fact paintings, utilitarian in purpose and, therefore, not entitled to free entry under paragraph … the class of articles defined in paragraph 652, supra, as “ original drawings and sketches in pen and ink or pencil and water colors;” that they com.e within the rule laid down in the case of American Colortype Co. et al. v.

United States v. Galef

18 C.C.P.A. 180 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1930

In United States v. Rothschild & Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 251 , T. D. 32566, this court said: It was next contended on argument that the board erred in granting the motion for rehearing without notice to appellant. … United States v. Fragele Bros., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 381 , T. D. 40543. United States v.

Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States

626 F.2d 168 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 7, 1980

In Consolo v. … Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U.S. 197 , 229 * * *.

In re Cornell

150 F.2d 702 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1945

See Emmet v. Fulla,gar, 1907 C. D. 322. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Herrmann

261 F.2d 598 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1958

Appellants point, out that v the flanges which form the walls 'of the raceway in the Bott construction extend only about half way from the bottom of the raceway to the pitch circle, and that approximately half of the bearing … The Board of Appeals is therefore reversed as to claims 4,8,12, and 13.

United States v. Rochester Last Works

11 Ct. Cust. 457 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 17, 1923

The Government cites the case of Koons v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 333 ; T. … The decision of the board is accordingly affirmed.

In re Dodds

166 F.2d 589 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1948

The Board of Appeals concluded that the position taken by the examiner was fully justified. Apparently the question of operativeness of the device of the Solvay patent was -raised by appellant before the board. … (Patents) 737, 152 F. (2d) 987, 68 USPQ 206 ; Metropolitan Engineering Co. v. Coe, 64 App. D. C. 315, 78 F. (2d) 199, 25 USPQ 216 .

Benecke v. United States

30 C.C.P.A. 55 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1942

In the case of Myers v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 226 , T. … In the case of United States v. Georgia Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 , T.

United States v. Minkus

16 Ct. Cust. 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1928

This cause was before this court in suit No. 2996, United States v. Minkus, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 260 , T. … Rio Grande Irrigation & Colonization Co. v. Gildersleeve, 174 U. S. 603 ; Hopper v. Mather, 104 Ill. App. 309 ; Magnuson v. Billings, 152 Ind. 177 ; Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290 ; Burlington v.

Cover v. Schwartz

116 F.2d 512 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1941

the board erred in this.respect. … See Cleveland Gas Burner & Appliance Co. v. American Heater Corp., 38 F. (2d) 760, 763.

Application of Mock

214 F.2d 164 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1954

Three claims were allowed by the examiner, and two claims which had been rejected by the examiner were allowed by the board. Appellants have withdrawn their appeal as to claims 23, 30, 31, 34, 59, 64, and 67. … remaining portions being concerned with functions and results upon which patent-ability cannot be predicated, particularly when structure at the alleged point of novelty is dependent thereon, citing General Electric Co. 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.

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.

United States v. Eastern Drug Co.

7 Ct. Cust. 210 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1916

See also United States v. Leavitt ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 144 ; T.D. 36460). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc. v. Anderson, Clayton and Company

353 F.2d 250 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1965

See American Drill Bushing Co. v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 342 F.2d 1019 , 52 CCPA 1173. … For the foregoing reasons the decision of the board sustaining the opposition is affirmed. Affirmed. WORLEY, C. J., dissents. 1 . Opposition No. 42,252. 2 .