Case law

Hoyt v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 7 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1923

—United States v. American Railway Express Co. ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 88 ; T. D. 38734). (See also “wafers,” Standard Dictionary.) … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Levin

197 F.2d 345 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1952

This is on appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary Examiner rejecting claim 3 in appellant’s application for a patent on a machine adapted to be used … It is stated that while the machine is constructed to be able to dig into loose or semi-compact coal, the device is fundamentally and primarily a. loading machine.” *347 In Miller v.

Application of Joseph E. Jendrisak

316 F.2d 941 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1963

In Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. … Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 11 Off. Gaz. 2 .

Braun-Steeple Co. v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 437 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1931

In the case of United States v. A. & H. … In the case of United States v.

P. Pastene & Co. v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 69 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1933

of General Appraisers, upon a petition filed and supported by satisfactory evidence under such rules as the board may prescribe, that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement … Finsilver, Still & Moss v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332 , T. D. 41250. In the case of Wolf & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 589 , T.

Algodonera v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 42 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1935

Again, the argument is made that the court below erred in refusing to follow a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, known as T. D. 14705-G. … Additional cases in point are Salomon Bros. et al. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 431 , T. D. 32196; Kamikawa Bros. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 12 , T. D. 42130; United States v. Tower & Sons, 17 C. C.

Tuska, Son & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 506 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1915

employed to cover or coat such articles with a layer of gold or silver, The terms therefore signify the final condition of the articles in question rather than the process which has produced that condition, Bloomingdale Bros. v. … In this view of the case the decision of the board is affirmed.

Marks Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Masciarelli v. Foerste

197 F.2d 539 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1952

The sole issue before the board and here is that of priority of invention and, to our understanding, the matter of validity of the patent is not an issue in a proceeding such as this. Long v. … Young, 159 F.2d 766, 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 871; Mantz v. Jackson, 140 F.2d 161 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 824; Scheinman v. Zalkind, 112 F.2d 1017 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1354; Miller v.

Park & Tilford Import Corp. v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1939

On appeal, the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the decision of the board, the case being reported as Alexander D. Shaw & Co. v. United States, 141 Fed. 469 . … On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision of the Circuit Court was reversed and the opinion of the Board of General Appraisers was approved. United States v. A. D. Shaw & Co., 144 Fed. 329 .

United States v. Brandt

11 Ct. Cust. 270 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1922

In Borgfeldt v. Erhardt ( 41 Fed. 102 ), decided January 7, 1890, this provision was under consideration. … A. 4178) in re Sheldon & Co., dated June 11, 1898, the Board of General Appraisers reviewed the whole matter. It found the merchandise was identical with that involved in the case of Borgfeldt v.

New England Fish Co. v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 34 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

The report of the collector on the reference to the court below is as follows: Respectfully referred to the Board of U. S. General Appraisers for decision. … United States v. Homestake Min. Co., 117 Fed. 481 ; Paine v. Willson, 146 Fed. 488 . We think that this evidence, although hearsay, was sufficient to establish that the fish were taken by American fisheries.

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.

Application of Ray

198 F.2d 831 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 30, 1952

Co. v. New Departure Mfg. Co., supra [6 Cir., 217 F. 775 ]; Walker on Patents, Deller’s Edition, Vol. 2, p. 790, et seq. … Mastoras v. Hil-dreth, 9 Cir., 263 F. 571, 576 .

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).

S. S. Kresge Co. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1937

Dow & Co., Inc. v. United States, Abstract 23953, 63 Treas. … In this respect, the case follows Smith & Nichols, Inc. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 16, T.

In re Jaeger

241 F.2d 723 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

Rich, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming-the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 10 of appellants’ patent application, filed July 22, 1950, … Since there is no doubt in our minds on the question of patentability, we need not discuss this point beyond observing that we see no parallel here to the situation which existed in Goodyear v. Ray-O-Vac, 321 U.

Borgfeldt & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 438 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923

The Board of General Appraisers upheld the collector. We must look to the evidence on the question having in mind that presumptively the collector is right. In United States v. Downing ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 479 ; T. … . • In United States v. Rappolt ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 21 ; T. D. 37846), a similar question was considered. See also United States v. Spingarn ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 2 ; T. D. 34002). No witness testified except Mr.

In re Diederichs

102 F.2d 215 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1939

(Patents) 723, 53 F. (2d) 534, we quoted with approval from Thompson et al. v. Boisselier et al., 114 U. … For the reasons stated the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Quality Marble & Granite Co.

48 C.C.P.A. 50 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 22, 1960

For example, a table top might be used as a “panel” or a shelf (see Richard Shipping Corporation v. United States, 17 C.C.P.A. … (Customs) 417, 418, T.D. 43865), or a tombstone (if unengraved) might be made into a table top, or a drain board, or a bench.