Case law

Application of Robert G. Woolery

405 F.2d 896 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1969

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1-18 of application serial No. 432,382, filed February 12, 1965, entitled “Cellulosic Paper Containing Asbestos.” … This lumping and coarseness is said to prevent the use of prior art asbestos even in brown wrapping paper.

Schweitzer v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1928

After referring to the decisions of this court in Welte & Sons v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 164, T. D. 34249; Durbrow & Hearne Manufacturing Co. v. United States, supra; and United States v. … In the case of Welte & Sons v.

C. S. Allen Corp. v. United States

38 C.C.P.A. 48 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1950

The decision of the .trial court stems from a decision made by it November 14, 1918, (while it was officially designated the Board of General Appraisers) in the case of J. A. Chambers v. United States, 35 Treas. … Following the description the Board (now the Customs Court) said: Unquestionably, such a label is not correctly classified under a tariff provision covering a particular kind or class of paper.

Yale University v. United States Department of Commerce, Domestic & International Business Administration

579 F.2d 626 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1977

Appellants cite Greater Boston Television v. … Appellants also cite United States v. International Harvester Co., 387 F.

Stresau v. Ipsen

77 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1935

However, in the same paragraph in which the foregoing appears, the board, after citing and quoting from the decision in the case of Dicckmann v. Brune, 37 App. D. … C. 485; Brown v. Campbell, 41 App. D. C. 499; MacLaren v. Stoetzel, 38 F.(2d) 125 , 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 857; Harlan v. Bregman et al., 39 F.(2d) 494 , 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 949; Nystrom and Landwehr v.

Maltus v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 320 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. In Maltus & Ware v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 376 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

L. Sandoz Vuille, Inc. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 303 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 29, 1934

Penick & Ford, Ltd., Inc. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 218 , T. D. 40228; Brown & Co. et al. v. United States. 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T. D. 40026 (certiorari denied, 265 U. S. 582 ). … We think our decision herein is controlled in principle by our decision in the case of Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, supra. The merchandise there involved was imported during the life of the Tariff Act of 1913.

Andrews & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 68 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 23, 1917

In Zanmati v. … A case very strongly in point is Brown v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 415 ; T. D. 35977). That case arose under a provision of the free list for soya beans.

Application of Kurt Baum

374 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

(Emphasis board's.) … Graham v.

In re Cole

46 F.2d 575 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1931

Naylor v. Alsop Process Co., 168 Fed. 911, 920 , 94 C. C. A. 315 . A syllabus of Topliff v. Topliff et al., 145 U. … In General Electric Co. v.

Application of James H. Saunders and Paul G. Gemeinhardt

444 F.2d 599 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1971

Brown Morton, Jr., Martin J. Brown, Washington, D. C., and Carl G. Ries, Houston, Tex., attorneys of record, for appellants. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D. … Company v. Automotive [Maintenance Machinery] Company, 324 U.S. 806 [ 65 S.Ct. 993 , 89 L.Ed. 1381 ] (1945)."

Absorbo Beer Pad Co. v. United States

30 C.C.P.A. 24 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

See Borgfeldt v. United States, 124 Fed. 473 . … . * * * So, also, we think the reasoning in United States v. Brown & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 212 , T. D. 34380, is applicable.

McKesson v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 515 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

D. 28576, and on the case of United States v. Sheldon ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485 ; T. D. 32245). … The board was not in error in so classifying it, and the decision is affirmed.

E. C. Miller Cedar Lumber Co. v. United States

86 F.2d 429 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

(United States impleaded) v. American Lithographic Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 318 , T. … Counsel for appellant also cite Feltex Corp. v. Dutchess Hat Works, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 463, T.

In re Greider

118 F.2d 906 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1941

Brown, published by Municipal Engineering Co. of New York in 1905. (8 Ed.) ” In its decision on the request for reconsideration, the Board of Appeals adhered to the views expressed in its original decision and again held … See Barber Asphalt Corp. v. La Fera Grecco Contracting Co., 116 F. (2d) 211, 47 U S P Q 367.

In re Baxter

656 F.2d 679 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 30, 1981

In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531 , 173 USPQ 685 (1972). … See Robie v.

United States v. A. Sahadi & Co.

23 C.C.P.A. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1936

D. 42768, and French Kreme Co. et al. v. United States, T. D. 43739, 56 Treas. … support of the plaintiff’s claim except a description of the process to which the apricots have been subjected and the official sample. 1 An inspection of the sample discloses that it consists of very thin sheets of a dark brown

In re Daniels

177 F.2d 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 30, 1949

As illustrative of the respective groups we follow the example set by the board and quote Nos. 10 and 17: 10. … When air is present, the hot resin is oxidized at the surface, forming a brown film which does not melt and is not affected by organic solvents.

Application of Roy W. Dike

394 F.2d 584 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1968

Mason, Porter, Diller & Brown, Charles J. Diller, Vincent L. Ramik, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. … 57 O.G. 999 , and Ex parte Fesenmeier, 1922 C.D. 18, 302 O.G. 199 5 That the term "integral" may be construed as relatively broad and does not imply any characteristic lacking in Harris is shown for example, by Henderson v.

The United States (Index Industrial Corp., Party in Interest) v. National Starch Products, Inc.

318 F.2d 737 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

United States v. H. V. Albrecht, etc., 27 CCPA 112, 117, C.A.D. 71; W. T. Grant Co. v. United States, 38 CCPA 57, 65, C.A.D. 440; United States v. … See also Strakosh v. United States, 1 CCPA 360, T.D. 31453, United States v. Danker & Marston, 2 CCPA 462, T.D. 32208, Tiffany v. United States, 2 Cir., 105 F. 766 , and the charge to the jury in Fisk et al. v.