Case law

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.

Application of Martin N. Ornitz and Ray H. English

351 F.2d 1013 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1965

Appellants urge that Payson did not recognize any advantages in the specific limits claimed by them, citing decisions in United Chromium, Inc. v. … International Silver Co., 60 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1932) and Pittsburgh Iron & Steel Foundries Co. v. Seaman-Sleeth Co., 248 F. 705 (3d Cir. 1917).

In re Helgason

136 F.2d 260 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1943

In support of the stated rule numerous decisions are cited including McCarty v. Lehigh Railroad Co., 160 U. S. 110 , cited by us in many cases, one being that of In re Fischer, 27 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

William R. Polye v. Herbert Bennett Uhl

328 F.2d 893 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

This appeal by the junior party Polye is from a decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of invention of the five counts in issue to the senior party Uhl, with one member of the board dissenting. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is reversed. Reversed.

Ah Ju Steel Co. v. Armco, Inc.

680 F.2d 751 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1982

Board of Education v. Nyquist, 590 F. 2d 1241, 1247 (2d Cir. 1979). … Valeron Corp., 608 F. 2d 265, 266-67 (6th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 930 (1980); Board of Education v. Nyquist, 590 F. 2d 1241 , 1247 n. 8 (2d Cir. 1979); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v.

In re Whittelsey

83 F.2d 894 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1936

In the case of Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. … The case of Morgan v. Drake et al., 17 C. C. P. A.

In re Preble

45 F.2d 1007 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1931

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the examiner denying claims 1 to 4, and 8, *825 in appellant’s application for an … The words “ spray ” and “ atomize ” are defined in Funk & Wag-nails New Standard Dictionary as follows: Spray, v. 1. t. To throw or scatter in minute particles, as liquids: sometimes done by an atomizer. 2.

Central Vermont Railway Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 31 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1920

See cases: United States v. Kirby (7 Wall.; 74 U. S., 482 ), Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States ( 143 U. S., 457 ), Shallus v. United States (162 Fed. Rep., 653), Maltus & Ware v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. … -tained and the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

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.

United States v. Salfner

7 Ct. Cust. 371 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

Brody v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 15 ; T. D. 31573); Thomsen v. United States (Ib., 37; T. D. 31590); Krauss v. United States (Ib., 17; T. D. 31574) ; United States v. Zinn (Ib., 419; T. … In the case of Bister v.

Sheldon v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 177 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1930

The lower court, following the decision of this court in United States v. Chas. J. Webb Sons Co. (Inc.), 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 156 , T. … . ■ The Government concedes that in view of United States v. Webb, supra, this was a proper ruling.

S. Nathan & Co. v. United States

37 C.C.P.A. 99 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

See Mermod & Jaccard Jewelry Company v. United States, 6 Treas. Dec. 670 , T. D. 24601; Albert Lorsch & Co. v. United States, 11 Treas. Dec. 527 , T. D. 27278; L. Heller & Sons v. United States, 13 Treas. Dec. 901 , T. … See Albert Lorsch & Co. v. United States, supra.

In re Abrahamsen

56 F.2d 871 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

In this connection Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 , is cited. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Meyer v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 79 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1930

In Lang v. … Murphy v. Arnson ( 96 U. S. 132 ); Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U. S. 252, 258 ).

United States v. New Drinks (Ltd.)

14 Ct. Cust. 16 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Judge Hazel in Cassel v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers must, therefore, be reversed.

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.

In re Davis

173 F.2d 1016 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

Co. v. U. S. Electric Mfg. … The decision of the board is, therefore, reversed.

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 .

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.

In re Hall

69 F.2d 660 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1934

Leschen & Sons v. Am. Steel & Wire Co., 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 851, 857, 55 F. (2d) 455, and cases therein cited. It is not enough that a design be new, original, and ornamental. … We 'find ourselves in agreement with the decision of the Board of Appeals, and it is, therefore, affirmed.