Case law

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.

United States v. Paramount Publix Corp.

73 F.2d 103 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 29, 1934

Feltex Corp. v. Dutchess Hat Works, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 463, 71 F. (2d) 322, T. D. 46957; Manufacturers of Goat Leather, etc. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 591, 596, T. D. 46996; Louisiana v. … General Dyestuff Corp. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 89, T. D. 46409. Counsel for appellee cite Allison v. United States, supra; Manufacturers of Goat Leather, etc., v.

In re Olsen

146 F.2d 501 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 11, 1944

(Naamlooze Venootschafs et al. v. doe, 132 F. (2d) 573; Orr v. Shilsam, Inc., 124 F. (2d) 751; In re Kepler, 132 P. (2d) 130 ', 30 C. C. P. A. 726). … For the reasons stated, the decision of the board is affirmed.

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.

United States v. Torch Manufacturing Co.

509 F.2d 1187 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1975

See Washington-Southern Navigation Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 263 U.S. 629, 635 (1924). This court, in Minkap of California, Inc. v. … Kaiser Reismann Corp. et al. v. United States, 47 Cust.

In re Stark

453 F.2d 1401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1972

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 14-18 of appellant’s *788 application serial No. 570,382, filed August 4,1966, 1 for a “Television Degaussing … See Switzer v. Sockman, 52 CCPA 759, 765-69, 333 F. 2d 935, 940-43 , 142 USPQ 226 , 230-32 (1964). The decision is reversed. Designated a continuation of abandoned application serial No. 331,669, filed December 19,1963.

Ascher Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 327 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1912

Hoeninghaus v. United States ( 172 U. S., 622 ); Saxonville Mills v. Russell ( 116 U. S., 13, 18, 20, 21 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Armour & Co. v. Emery Industries, Inc.

433 F.2d 821 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1970

PER CURIAM: On consideration of the transcript of record, the briefs, the arguments on appeal, and our recent decision in Technic, Inc. v. … . & Pat.App., 419 F.2d 1331 (1970), cited by the appellant, we find no error in the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 156 USPQ 689 (1968). Affirmed.

United States v. Dr. Oidtmann Studios, Inc.

31 C.C.P.A. 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 1, 1943

Hill v. United States, 59 Treas. Dec. 1008 , T. D. 44847, the U. S. … However, it its opinion the court, with reference to various questions passed upon by the Board of General Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court, said: Furthermore under paragraph 654 the board held that the church

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.

United States v. D. Silver, Inc.

23 C.C.P.A. 238 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1935

The Customs Court, in sustaining the claim of the importer under said paragraph 1518, relied upon the case of United States v. Massce & Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 256 , T. D. 38214. … In our opinion, the case at bar is clearly distinguishable upon the facts from the case of United States v.

United States v. Sheldon & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 421 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

See Fischer v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls,, 301; T. D. 34477). The cases cited by the general appraiser in sustaining the protest ■ do not go to the length of supporting the conclusion which was reached. … The decision of the board is reversed.

United States v. Tadross & Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. D. 41318. … Johnson Co. v. United States, supra; Metz & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. D. 41340.

United States v. Jules Raunheim Inc.

17 C.C.P.A. 425 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

In United States v. … Frankenberg v. United States, supra; United States v. Citroen, supra.

In re Thacker

154 F.2d 156 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 937, 102 F. (2d) 212, 40 USPQ 665 . The general principle of inherency therein set forth was, followed by us in the case of In re Salomon, 30 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. BlaNd, Judge, dissents.

Matter of the Application of Jacob J. Jaeger and John M. Rusnak

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

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 Tire & Rubber Co. v. … For the foregoing reasons we see no error in the decision of the board and it is affirmed. Affirmed. JACKSON, J., retired, recalled to participate in place of COLE, J.

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 .

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.

Mohr v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 30, 1928

Subsequently, on a rehearing granted the importers, Justice Brown likewise affirmed the appraised values. Application is now made to review the latter decision. … (Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261 , T. D. 40269; Sandoz Chemical Works v. United States, 12 id. 512, T. D. 40700; United States v. Borgfeldt & Co., 12 id. 324, T. D. 40482; United States v.

Continental Distilling Corporation v. Norman Williams Co., Assignee of E. Martinoni Company

443 F.2d 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1971

Smith Bowman Distillery, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc., 198 F.Supp. 822 (D.Del.1961). We are not convinced. The factual situation in the Bowman case is distinguishable from the present case. … For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Abstracted at 157 USPQ 715 (1968). 2 . E. Martinoni Company. 3 .