Case law

Wheeler v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1921

court (United States v. … Mexican Hardwood Lumber Co. v.

Application of Leo L. Hengehold

440 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1971

See also Torok v. Watson, 122 F.Supp. 788 , (DC 1954). The decision of the board as to the scope of its jurisdicton under 35 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 134 is affirmed. … Bruns v. Watson, 109 USPQ 8 (D.D.C. 1956), aff’d. Watson v. Bruns, 99 U.S. App.D.C. 327, 239 F.2d 948 (1956).

Jim Dandy Co. ex rel. Western Grain Co. v. Martha White Foods, Inc.

458 F.2d 1397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1972

Appellant cites the Wood and Lever cases relied on by the board, as well as. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. General Instrument Corp., 152 USPQ 821 (TTAB 1967), in support of its position. … See Macaulay v. Malt-Diastase, 55 App. D.C. 277 , 4 F. 2d 945 (D.C. Cir. 1925); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Sears, Roebuch & Co., 18 CCPA 1386, 49 F. 2d 842 , 9 USPQ 524 (1931); Alfred Electronics v.

R. G. Barry Corp. v. Mushroom Makers, Inc.

609 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1979

.] *1005 OPINION The board is, for the most part, correct in its comment that this court will not take jurisdiction over appeals from “non final” board decisions or from interlocutory orders of the board. Toro v. … Unlike the situation in Toro v. Hardigg, the board in the instant case denied a motion for summary judgment.

Ringk v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 126 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

In reaching this conclusion the board relied largely upon the supposed authority of the case of Rolland Fréres v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 321 , to which reference will hereinafter be made. … Murphy v. Arnson, 96 U. S. 131 ; Arthur v. Fox, 108 U. S. 125 ; Cone v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 263 ; United States v. Kress & Co., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 443 .

Connor v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 312 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 31, 1919

He said that he had never seen a flannel composed of a worsted warp and á wool weft, .and that according to his experience flannels were limited in color to staple blacks, blues, and a few browns. E. M. … decision is based on the record as made, and, because the distinction between fabrics- approximately of the same quality and materials is .sometimes exceedingly fine and difficult to ascertain, as noted by Judge Story in Cary v.

Cryns v. Musher

161 F.2d 217 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1947

All of the cases relied upon by the board, and the case of Chapman v. … As stated by the Board of Interference Examiners in the case of Thompson v.

Morehouse Manufacturing Corporation v. J. Strickland and Company

407 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1969

Directly or indirectly, the board relied on Artichoke Industries, Inc. v. Regina Grape Products Co., 138 USPQ 687 (TTAB 1963); Eastern Metals Research Co. v. … To an even greater extent than in Shoe Corp. of America v.

Allison v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 297 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1922

The cases, of Grandmange v. Schell ( 32 Fed. 655 ), Bodart v. Schell ( 33 Fed. 825 ), and Florio v. Peaslee (9 Fed. … See Bradley Martin, jr., v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384 ; T. D. 32982); Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. v. United States (4 id. 60, *304 T. D. 33308); United States v. Saunders (6 id. 86, T.

In re Barker

559 F.2d 588 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 21, 1977

Fields v. … The Supreme Court, in Evans v.

Stahel & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923

D. 32286); Horace Day Co. v. United States (3 id. 152; T. D. 32456); United States v. Bradshaw & Co. (5 id. 121; T. D. 34168); United States v. Johnson Co. (7 id. 466; T. D. 37050); United States v. … Horace Day Co. v. United States, supra. Accordingly we affirm the decision of the board.

Borror v. Herz

666 F.2d 569 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1981

Bight of Cross-Examination The board relied on Nielson v. … We find no error in the board’s decisions on these issues. . In a recent opinion of this court, Reese v. Hurst v.

Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Sandwich Chef, Inc.

608 F.2d 875 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 25, 1979

Martin v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 422 F.2d 918, 920 , 57 CCPA 968, 970, 165 USPQ 171 , 172 cert. denied, 400 U.S. 911 , 91 S.Ct. 140 , 27 L.Ed.2d 151 (1970). See Tektronix, Inc. v. … Appellant cites Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v.

Loblaw Groceterias, Inc. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1935

See American Express Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 146 , T. D. 33434; Maier, Morton & Browne v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 115 , T. D. 38753. … In Maier, Morton & Browne v. United States, supra, goods manufactured in England wer sold and delivered to a company at Montreal, Canada. These wer shipped in bond, and were exported to the United.

United States v. Eytinge

4 Ct. Cust. 266 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

decision of the board, which is reported as Abstract 29504 (T. … The appellees in' support of their several contentions especially cite United States v. Herrmann ( 145 Fed., 843 ); same case ( 154 Fed., 196 ); and also Vandegrift v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 219 ; T.

United States v. Olivotti

7 Ct. Cust. 46 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1916

Standard Dictionary; Century Dictionary; United States v. Downing & Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 545 : T. D., 36197) ; Stern v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 124, 126 ; T. D. 32381) ; United States v. … United States v. Perry ( 146 U. S., 71, 74 ). Inasmuch as we find that the font is not sculpture and not a work of the fine arts, we think that it is not dutiable under paragraph 376 as found by the board.

United States v. McConnaughey & Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 112 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1925

In McKesson & Robbins v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 459 , T. D. 39534, and again in United States v. Michelson & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 402 , T. … Wolff v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 181, T. D. 31217; Shallus v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 317 , T. D. 34525.

Lichtenwalter v. Caron

158 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1947

In support of its decision, the board cited the decisions of this court in the cases of Collins v. Olsen, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1017, 102 F. (2d) 828, 41 USPQ 220 ; Kear v. Roder, 28 C. C. P. A. … In the case of Kear v.

Application of Ellis H. Bryant, Jr

390 F.2d 1006 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 7, 1968

Brown, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., for counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. … WORLEY, Chief Judge. 1 This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the single claim in appellant's application 1 for "High Speed Counters" as "unpatentable over Wollar 2

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1918

The Board, of General Appraisers overruled the protest. The importers appeal. The legislative history of these provisions is instructive. … United States ( 172 Fed., 173 ), held that “ olein” was properly dutiable under tbe provisions of paragraph 3 of tbe act of 1897, ás a “distilled oil.” • The court pertinently said: In Movius v.