Case law

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.

Sylvania Industrial Corp. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 230 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1934

Citing Nicholls v. … In Beaver v.

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 Appellants have withdrawn their appeal as to claims 23, 30, 31, 34, 59, 64, and 67.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. Radio Corp. of America

41 C.C.P.A. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1953

Passaic Worsted Co. et al. v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 459, T. D. 43916; United States v. Sheep Shearers Mdse. & Comm. Co., 23 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 146, T. D. 48009; Edward Brenner v. … In the case of Maddock v. Magone, 152 XT. S. 368,371, the Supreme Court (after citing and quoting from the case of Cadwalader v. Zeh, 151 U.

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.

Sakrete, Inc. v. Slag Processors, Inc.

305 F.2d 482 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 18, 1962

As stated by this court in Wincharger Corporation v. … Dayton Rubber Co. v. General Felt Products Co., 223 F.2d 734, 736 , 42 CCPA 1035, 1037.

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 .

Vantine v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 488 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 20, 1913

Arthur v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70 ), In re Wise (93 Fed. Rep., 443), Drew v. Grinnell ( 115 U. S., 477 ), Schiff v. United States. (99 Fed. Rep., 555), Robertson v. Edelhoff (91 Fed. Rep., 642). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Pirani

102 F.2d 207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1939

Marble Lamp Co. v Aluminum Products Co., 301 U. S. 544 ; In re Cordes, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1158, 16 F. (2d) 302; In re Wadman, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 936, 94 F. (2d) 993. … The motion of appellant to dismiss claims 25, 26 and 27 is granted, and for the reasons set forth herein the decision of the Board of Appeals as to claim 28 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.

In re Russel

56 F.2d 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1932

The Board of Appeals concurred in the views expressed by the primary examiner and stated that appellants’ device was not patent-ably different from that disclosed by the reference. … Co. v. General Electric Co., 212 Fed. 422, 429 , and cases cited; Selectasine Patents Co. v. Presto-O-Graph Co., 261 Fed. 840 ; Walker on Patents, Vol. 1, sec. 91. The decision is affirmed.

Cauvigny Brush Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 118 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

Swayne v. Hager (37 Fed. Rep., 780). United States v. Eschwege et al. (98 Fed. Rep., 600). These views dispose of the case, and lead to an affirmance of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers.

In re Voorhees

40 F.2d 773 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

The law as to nonanalogous prior patents anticipating an invention is very definitely stated in the case of Potts v. Creager, 155 U. … It is sufficient to say that we think the decision of the Board of Appeals covers all of the questions involved in this appeal and we find no error therein. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Passaic Worsted Co. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1930

United States v. Salomon, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 246 , T. D. 31277; United States v. Brown & Co., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. D. 38295; United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. … United States v. Exstein Co., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 328 , T. D. 43079; United States v. Schade & Co., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 366 , T. D. 43092; Hampton, jr., v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 490 , T.

Rite Aid Corp. v. Rite-Way Discount Corp.

508 F.2d 828 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1975

Inc. v. W. R. Grace & Co., 470 F.2d 1046 , 176 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1973) similarity in sound is enough to create a likelihood of confusion. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

Application of Rudolf Beckmann, Erich Behr and Franz Joseph Huster

410 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1969

The board agreed. … The examiner and board did not agree with appellants’ interpretation of “Quotation I” from Grimminger.

United States v. Rheinboldt

6 Ct. Cust. 66 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

The protest was duly submitted upon testimony to the Board of General Appraisers and the same was sustained by the board. From that decision the Government now prosecutes this appeal. … United States v. Massachusetts General Hospital ( 100 Fed., 932 ); Sargent & Co. case (T. D. 24902).

Bisbee Linseed Co. v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 26, 1931

Without attempting to construe paragraphs 59 and 1631, which were not involved in said case of United States v. … In the case of United States v. White, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 80 , T.