Case law

In re Gernandt

40 F.2d 771 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis Bournonville Co., 270 U. S. 390 . (Italics ours.) In the case of Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. … We think there is no error in the decision of the board and the same is affirmed.

In re Stevens

36 F.2d 296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

With reference to this contention, the Board of Appeals, said: * * * In appellant’s construction there is no direct abutting action between the tool collar and the member 6. … If it is, then every mechanical improvement may be said to result from the exercise of the inventive faculties. *687 In the case of Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.

In re Hawkes

70 F.2d 901 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1934

Our attention is called to Bird v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is, therefore, reversed.

Guerin Mills v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 457 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1929

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 … It is argued that the issues in this case are controlled by the decision of this court in the case of Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. *460 395 , T. D. 41322.

Application of Dewey I. Doyle, Dewey I. Doyle, Jr. And Patrick E. Doyle

371 F.2d 504 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1967

Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 , [ 43 S.Ct. 322 , 67 L.Ed. 523 ]; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 321 U.S. 275 , [ 64 S.Ct. 593 , 88 L.Ed. 721 ]. … We therefore affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals. Affirmed.

United States v. Makaroff

14 Ct. Cust. 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1926

The case of United States v. American Express Co., 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 95, T. D. 31636, is cited as authority for this construction of the statute. … United States v. Brown & Co. et al., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. D. 38395; United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 40296; Cone & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 133 , T.

Roman Meal Company v. Roman Crest Foods, Inc.

300 F.2d 926 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1962

300 F.2d 926 ROMAN MEAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. ROMAN CREST FOODS, INC., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6785. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. April 11, 1962. John B. Hosty, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. … No. 142,895, issued May 17, 1921 19 WORLEY, Chief Judge (dissenting). 20 The board was clearly correct in dismissing the opposition. I would affirm.

In re Jobst

37 F.2d 751 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

In Boston Pencil Pointer Co. v. Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co., 276 Fed. 910, 912 , the court (C. C. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 315 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1939

Appellant contends that a decision of the Board of General Appraisers in the case of Handy & Harman v. United States, T. D. 36924, 32 Treas. … National Sanitary Rag Co. v. United States, 23 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 200, T. D. 48051.

Application of Newton

187 F.2d 337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1951

Williams Co. v. United Shoe Mach. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals should be completely reversed. . In re Barnett, 155 F.2d 540 , 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1119; Mershon v.

Adolphe Hurst & Co. v. United States

33 C.C.P.A. 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1946

As stated by the trial court, the testimony taken in the prior case of Adolphe Hurst & Co. v. … Beiersdorf & Co., Inc. v. United States, 31 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 158, C. A.

Pierce v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 171 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1911

In Nix v. Hedden ( 149 U. … As was clearly pointed out by the Board of General Appraisers, ITowell, G.

Application of Craige

189 F.2d 294 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1951

The decision of the Board of Appeals, for the reasons stated, is reversed. Reversed. JACKSON, Judge, dissents. 1 . … In re Vickers et al., 141 F.2d 522 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 985; International Standard Electric Corp. v. Kingsland, 83 U.S.App.D.O. 355, 169 F.2d 890 ; Ex parte Johnson, 40 U.S.P.Q. 576 .

In re Kiekhaefer

299 F.2d 869 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1962

One side, the forward side, of the “V” lies parallel to the axis of the control rod. … Clearly, if the rod’s V-shaped end surface Is beveled so that the angle between the rearward side of the “V” and the propeller shaft axis is approximately the same as in the corresponding Armstrong et al. device, it would

Application of Raymond P. Fischer

360 F.2d 230 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1966

Appellant cites Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. … See Bryan v.

Rogers v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

The case of United States v. Buss, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 110 , T. D. 34138, is cited by counsel for appellant as authority for this contention. … In Snow’s United States Sample Express Co. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T.

United States v. Douglas

6 Ct. Cust. 100 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

In the case of White v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 327 ; T. … The Board of General Appraisers found that such classification had been shown.

Application of Rudolph S. Bley

337 F.2d 657 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1964

Bley appeals from a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of all of the claims in appellant’s application 1 for a process, of spinning viscose rayon yarn. … Appellant relies on In re Sutton et al., 211 F.2d 582 , 41 CCPA 816 and Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc. v.

Standard Oil Co. v. Epley

40 F.2d 997 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1930

appellate tribunal rejects an application upon a reference not cited by the Examiner, the office rules require the return of the case to the Examiner, unless the applicant waives the procedure and agreet to a hearing before the Board … In American Eruit Growers, Inc., v. Michigan Fruit Growers, Inc. (Cust. & Pat.

Armour & Co. v. Emery Industries, Inc.

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

PEE CUEIAM: On consideration of the transcript of record, the briefs, the arguments on appeal, and our recent decision in Technic, Inc. v. … Sel-Rex Corporation, 57 CCPA 873, 419 F. 2d 1331 , 164 USPQ 342 (1970), cited by the appellant, we find no error in the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 156 USPQ 689 (1968).