Case law

A. Hofmann, Inc. v. United States

71 F.2d 316 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1934

To the same effect was United States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 535 . … Other cases in point are Water-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U.S. 159, 179 ; Charbonnier et al. v. United States, 45 F. (2d) 166; Snider v. Sand Springs Ry.

In re Weber

87 F.2d 534 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1937

The Board of Appeals concurred with the examiner throughout. … Eibel Process Company v. Minnesota da Ontario Paper Company, 261 U. S. 45 .

Claflin Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1912

Rep., 1011); Sternfeld v. United States (T. D. 27773); Carter v. United States (143 Fed. Rep., 256); Morimura v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 181 ; T. D. 31941); Lichtenstein v. United States (154 Fed.. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be affirmed„

In re Marcum

47 F.2d 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1931

Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156 ; In re Scott, 25 App. D. C. 301; In re Lower, 49 App. D. C. 226; Burnham v. Union Mfg. Co., 110 Fed. 165 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals should be, and is, affirmed.

Picker X-Ray Corp. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1938

The purport of this Treasury decision is that, after a decision of this court (Mandelstam v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 58 , T. … It was the view of the trial court that the decision of that court in the case of Adlanco X-ray Corp. v. United States, T. D. 47567, 67 Treas.

United States v. Japan Import Co.

28 C.C.P.A. 71 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1940

In United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons, 24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 304, T. … Landram v. United States, 16 Ct. Cls. 74.

Bernard v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

The above case and the cases of Lang et al. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 85 ; T. D. 34129); United States v. F. W. Myers & Co. ( 139 Fed. 344 ; T. D. 26517) (the fireproofed lumber case), and United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

McKesson & Robbins (Inc.) v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

Mills & Gibb Corporation v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 72 , T. D. 40933. The case of McKesson & Robbins (Inc.) v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 481 , T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Egloff

79 F.2d 917 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1935

In this connection appellant has laid particular stress on the decisions in American Steel Foundries v. Damascus Brake Beam Co., 267 Fed. 574 , and National Cash Register Co. v. … For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Board of Appeals committed no error in affirming the decision of the examiner, and its decision is affirmed.

In re Smith

147 F.2d 1009 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1945

Co. et al. v. General Electric Co. et al., 34 F. Supp. 40 , 45 USPQ 695 . On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the District Court — 123 F. (2d) 819, 51 USPQ 547 . … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed as to claims 5, 7,8,10, and 13 to 19, inclusive.

In re Crawford

154 F.2d 670 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1946

From the decision of the board this appeal was taken. The claims read as follows: 8. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Vetter

96 F.2d 999 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1938

the obtaining of pure crystals by crystallizing hydrous sodium bichromate by the same process which appellant applies in producing anhydrous sodium bichromate in crystal form. *1192 In the case of Paramount Publix Corp. v. … As to all others, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Balfour v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 266 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1922

The case of United States v. Laurentide Paper Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 519 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Majestic Distilling Company, Inc

420 F.2d 1086 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1970

Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., 299 F.2d 855 , 49 CCPA 931 (1962). … In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549 , 55 CCPA 1049 (1968); Audio Fidelity, Inc. v. London Records, Inc., 332 F.2d 577 , 51 CCPA 1429 (1964).

United States v. Pacific Customs Brokerage Co.

31 C.C.P.A. 102 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 1, 1943

classifiable under paragraph 1803 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and, therefore, not subject to any customs duty under that act, but further holding the merchandise to be subject to a tax at the rate of $1.50 per thousand feet, board … The decision of the trial court in this case does not, in fact, make specific reference to the claims under paragraph 1806, but the record in a previous case styled Pacific Customs Brokerage Co. v.

Application of Francis J. Hassler

347 F.2d 911 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

To supply the missing elements, the Board of Appeals has taken "judicial notice" of several elements and has also relied on secondary references. 50 In particular, tthe board took "judicial notice of dampers," and stated … The additional references cited are at best evidence of what one of ordinary skill in this art would be expected to know. 64 In Cohn v.

Application of Thomas F. Peterson

390 F.2d 735 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1968

The board reversed the rejection of two other claims. … On that basis we find no reversible error in the board’s decision.

In re Allen

111 F.2d 173 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1940

(Patents) 1246, 84 F. (2d) 206; McCarty v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 160 U. S. 110 . In our opinion the alleged new result amounts merely to a difference in degree over what is disclosed by the patent. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is ajfirmed.

Pomeroy v. Walker

64 F.2d 544 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1933

Co. v. … . * * * It will be seen from the opinion in Railway Co. v.

United States v. Tice & Lynch

10 Ct. Cust. 198 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

The court is unable to agree with the board in its conclusion. … In Dutton & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 460 ; T.