Case law

Harry N. Bloomfield Co. v. The United States

442 F.2d 1401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

It seems to have distinguished this case from V. Casazza & Bro. v. … The latest of the cited decisions, and exemplary of the group, is United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., 34 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 351 (1946).

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.

United States v. General Dyestuff Corp.

29 C.C.P.A. 53 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1941

It is dark brown in colour, and can be bleached. M. p. 80°-90° C.; soluble in benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride. … (Inc.) v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 355, T. D. 43798; A. H. Ringk & Co. et al. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 132 , T. D. 42769.

Stern v. Schroeder

36 F.2d 515 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

This is an appeal, in an interference proceeding^ from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority of the invention to appellees. … Jobski v. Johnson, 47 App. D. C. 230, and eases cited therein; Blaine v. White, 50 App. D. C. 38, 267 F. 340 . See, also, Ruth v. Groch, 51 App. D. C. 226, 277 F. 861 ; and Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D.

Pelz-Greenstein Co. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 305 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1929

The case of Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 441 , is cited and quoted. In that great case the State of Maryland passed a law providing for payment of a license fee by any one who sold imported merchandise. … (Inc.) v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 451 , T. D. 43199, and cases therein cited.

Morgenstern & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 212 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

Hempstead v. Thomas (129 Fed. Rep., 907). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Rivers

10 Ct. Cust. 262 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1921

at the hearing by the importer, and considered by the board. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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.

United States v. Berger

13 Ct. Cust. 362 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

American Thermo- Ware Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 218 , T. D. 35465; United States v. Bache & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 445 , T. D. 37011. … Scientific Supply Importing Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 56 , T. D. 34094.

Reddy v. Dann

529 F.2d 1347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1976

Dann, 503 F.2d 562 , 183 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1974), and Duffy v. … Import Motors Limited, Inc. v.

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 Weeks

48 F.2d 662 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

Co. v. Union Electric Mfg. Co. et al., 147 Fed. 266 ; Comptograph Co. v. Mechanical Accountant Co., 145 Fed. 331 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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.

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.

International Minerals & Metals Corp. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

I am unable to agree with the conclusion that this case is ruled by United States v. Philips Co. (7 Ct. Oust. Appls. 497; T. D. 37110). There the place of principal foreign market was agreed to. … Board of General Appraisers on the ground that the appraisal was void as not having been made in accordance with law. Smith, Judge, concurs in this dissent.•

In re Moulton

38 F.2d 694 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1930

Claims 1 to 9, inclusive, and 13 to 15, inclusive, were rejected by tbe board on reference to DeVault, 1355543, dated October 12, 1920. … Risdon Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 77 ; Westinghouse v. Boyden P. Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537 , 557; Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 383 .

Application of Aronberg

198 F.2d 840 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 30, 1952

C.C.P.A., Patents, 1171; In re Waite, 1947, C.D. 61; 596 O.G. 5 , 158 F.2d 291 , 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 727; In re Benner, 1949, C.D. 367; 625 O.G. 5 ; 174 F.2d 938 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1081; and Merit Manufacturing Company v. … The petition and affidavit were discussed by the board in a second written opinion. The petition was denied insofar as it sought any change in the board’s original decision.

Galamb v. Gilmer

68 F.2d 967 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 5, 1934

In the case of Deering v. … . * * * In the case of Eibel Process Company v.

United States v. Bailey

18 C.C.P.A. 375 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1931

D. 33529, and United States v. Heller Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 227 , T. … The Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) overruled the protest and its judgment was affirmed by this court. In the case of United States v.

United States v. American Railroad

5 Ct. Cust. 474 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1914

We held in the recent case of Kuyper v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 175 ; T. … D. 31480), and Birtwell v. Saltonstall ( 39 Fed., 384 ). The board in the present case sustained the protest. We think this was error. The decision is reversed and the assessment sustained.