Case law

Application of Theodore W. Zierden

411 F.2d 1325 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1969

The board treated them in accordance with the statement in the final rejection. … He cites Pittsburgh Iron & Steel Foundries Co. v. Seaman-Sleeth Co., 248 F. 705 (3rd Cir.1917); Becket v.

In Re Kuhn

183 F.2d 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1950

In Wollensak v. … In the case of Crosley Corp. v.

J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States

504 F.2d 1403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 7, 1974

We conclude that the Customs Court properly read the term “microphones” in accordance with its meaning in the trade, see Brown Boveri Corp. v. … I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.

Winslow Palmer v. John T. McLamore Milton J. Minneman, and Ted E. Dunn

220 F.2d 770 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1955

In support of this last conclusion McLamore cites Gray Telephone Pay Station Co. v. Baird Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 174 P. 417 , and Brill v. Third Ave. R. … Co., C.C., 103 F. 289 , as holding that claims are not anticipated merely because they read in terms on prior art, and cites Minton v.

Paillard, Inc. v. United States

55 C.C.P.A. 31 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1968

United States, 53 CCPA 28, C.A.D. 872 (1966); Brown Boveri Corp. v. United States, 53 CCPA 19, C.A.D. 870 (1966); Edward Hyman Co. v. United States, 52 CCPA 51, C.A.D. 857 (1965); and United States v. … Inc. v. United States, 51 Cust. Ct. 274 , Abs. 68141 (1963) (“photo lenses”); Barnett Customs Brokers, Inc. v. United States, 50 Cust.

Walgreen v. Greenwald Hosiery Co.

139 F.2d 713 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1943

The Examiner of Interferences (citing the cases of American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U. S. 372 , and Tinker v. M. F. Patterson Dental Supply Co., 53 App. D. … C. 507, 509; Baekeland v. Van Exem., 146 M. D. 403, Mar. 14, 1925, 15 T.-M. Rep. 176; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540, 548 ; Danco v.

In re Symonds

47 F.2d 972 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Smith & Company v. … In Kurtz et at. v.

Bayersdorfer v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 446 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

The importers protested and, decision having been rendered against them by the Board of General Appraisers, appealed to this court. … United States v. Bayersdorfer ( 175 Fed., 959 ). Affirmed.

United States v. Colonial Commerce Co.

44 C.C.P.A. 18 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1956

. *20 binding no precedent directly in point in the instant case, the court relied on the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in Frame & Co. v. United States, T. D. 26374, G. … All that needed to be decided in the Frame case was that the particular product there involved was “ground” and, in so holding, it does not appear that the Board of General Appraisers went any further than to decide that

United States v. Wm. Cooper & Nephews, Inc.

22 C.C.P.A. 31 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1934

Magone v. Heller, supra; Fink v. United States, 170 U.S. 584 ; United States v. Ducommun Hardware Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 353 , T.D. 36904, and cases cited; United States v. Irwin & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. … In the case of Fink v.

United States v. Corsi, Zumsteg & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 292 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

L. & P., 851; Graham v. Williams ( 21 La. Ann., 594, 597 ); Hatch v. Dunn ( 11 Tex., 708, 715 ); United States v. Teschmaker ( 22 How., 392, 403 ). … D. 27645); United States v. Brownell (159 Fed. Rep., 219).

United States v. Ringk

16 Ct. Cust. 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1928

This case seems to be controlled by our judgment and opinion in United States v. Field, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 376 , T. D. 42031. In the case cited, handkerchief samples bound within covers were involved. … The board filled the ellipsis by inserting the word “books” after “all other,” and found the merchandise here to be books.

Pratt Food Co. v. Crete Mills & Security Mills & Feed Co.

47 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Our recent decision in the Skookum Packers' Assn. v. Pacific Northwest Canning Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 792, 45 F. (2d) 912, will be found to contain matter here relevant. … All assignments of error are overruled and the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re McLean

87 F.2d 508 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1937

In the case of Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 98 U. … In the case of Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, supra, the Supreme Court stated it was not necessary to decide whether the provision here discussed was confined to machine patents.

In re Wells

56 F.2d 674 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1932

We there pointed out that such was the doctrine of Minerals Separation, Limited, et al. v. Hyde, 242 U. S. 261 , which case was there relied upon, as it is here. Other cases in point are In re Williams, 17 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Dodge v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 18 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1934

After citing this court’s decision in the case of United States v. Marshall Field & Co., 18 C.C.P.A. … In the later case of Austin, Nichols & Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust.

Columbia Malleable Castings Corp. v. United States

31 C.C.P.A. 14 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

In the case of Green Kay Corporation, et al. v. … Dec. 806 , decided May 9, 1912 (not cited by counsel for either of the parties), the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) held certain “galvanized date nails” having, as the board stated, “a broad

United States v. Gerdau Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 97 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

Barber, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case was heard in conjunction with the case of United States v. Benneche ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 92 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

East Asiatic Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1940

D. 42052; United States v. Estate of Boshell, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273 , T. D. 41884; and May Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 266 , T. D. 40270. … Importer’s protest was overruled by the Board of General Appraisers and this court affirmed its judgment.

United States v. Anderson

3 Ct. Cust. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1912

The board in its decision construed the stipulation to mean that the imported article in the condition, shape, and size and partially made into a window curtain, as imported, was known as a “cotton window holland.” … Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 494 ; T. D. 31528); Worthington v. Robbins ( 139 U. S., 337, 340 ).