Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

R. Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., Seton Leather Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc.

326 F.2d 786 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Singer Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Birginal-Bigsby Corp., 319 F.2d 273 , 50 CCPA 1380. We think that the reasoning applied by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in two more recently decided cases is apposite here. … Gallun & Sons Corp. v. Aristocrat Leather.

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.

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.

Arthur Liebscher v. Wilson P. Boothroyd

258 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 1, 1958

Sweetland v. Don Cole, 19 C.C.P.A.(Patents) 751, 53 F.2d 709 , 11 U.S.Pat.Q. 174; William E. Moore v. Albert E. Greene, 18 C.C.P.A. … Furthermore, we find nothing in Bocciarelli v. Huffman, supra, cited by the board, which is inconsistent with the position wTe have taken.

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.

Application of John Edward James

432 F.2d 473 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 22, 1970

Customs and Patent Appeals, thereby waiving his right to proceed under section 145 of this title. * * * That premise apparently had its genesis in the opinion of this court handed down almost forty years ago, in Sundback v. … In re Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc., 411 F.2d 1025 , 56 CCPA 1230 (1969); United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co., 341 F.2d 157 , 52 CCPA 967 (1965).

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

Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.

640 F.2d 1317 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1981

American Novawood Corp. v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 57 CCPA 1276, 1282, 426 F.2d 23, 828 , 165 USPQ 613 , 616 (1970). See American Security Bank v. … Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 685 , 196 USPQ 1, 2 (CCPA 1977); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 902 , 177 USPQ 76, 77 (CCPA 1973); Vornado, Inc. v.

Williams v. Administrator of the National Aeronautics & Space Administration

463 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 10, 1972

Larsen v. Marz all, 195 F.2d 200 , 92 USPQ 306 (D.C. Cir. 1952); Farrand Optical Co. v. United States, 325 F.2d 328 , 139 USPQ 249 (2 Cir. 1963); Goodrich v. Harmsen, 58 CCPA 1144, 442 F.2d 377 , 169 USPQ 553 (1971). … We thus disagree with the position taken by the board in Rosen v. Administrator, 152 USPQ 757 (Bd. Pat.

Frederick F. Glass v. William C. De Roo

239 F.2d 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1956

As to both the board and this court, certain questions which are “ancillary” to priority may also be considered. Patentability is not one of those questions. Hess v. … Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App.D.C. 65 ; Mell v. Midgley, 31 App.D.C. 534 ; Lecroix v. Tyberg, 33 App.D.C. 586 ; Slingluff v. Sweet, 45 App.D.C. 302 ; Lynch v. Headley, 52 App. D.C. 269 , 285 F. 1003 ; Melling v.

Application of Hans Hilmer, Gerhard Korger, Rudi Weyer and Walter Aumuller

359 F.2d 859 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1966

As of now, of course, three board opinions are public. See Lilly v. Brenner, discussed infra. November 1964, a Commentary, by Gary A. … Nine years pass without a decision and we then come to Viviani v. Taylor v.

James Alfred Martin v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation

422 F.2d 918 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1970

We are aware that appellant alleges error in the board’s refusal to let appellant, during the appeal period, amend the description of the goods. This, however, is not an appealable matter. 2 . Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. … Gulf States Paper Corp., 150 U.S.P.Q. 700 (TTAB 1966), and Southern Shell Fish Co. v. S. Felicione & Sons Fish Co., 108 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Com’r 1956).

Myers v. Feigelman

455 F.2d 596 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1972

Sloan v. Peterson, supra note 3. Accordingly, it is an issue which should have been considered independently by the board. … While we undoubtedly have the power to proceed on our own and decide questions not reached by the board which become relevant only because we have reversed the board on questions which they did reach, Sloan v.

United States v. Borgfeldt

13 Ct. Cust. 620 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 15, 1926

Krusi v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 168 , T. D. 31213; United States v. Perkins, Id. 323, T. D. 31430; Wolff v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 11 , T. D. 31572; United States v. … In Illfelder v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 109 , T.

In re Eynde

480 F.2d 1364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1973

The board noted that the references were not “urged upon [it] in the brief,” and since the references were not of record prior to the board’s original decision, the board refused to consider them. *1369 The board adhered … See, e. g., Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746 , 59 CCPA- (1972). In such a situation, it is the knowledge possessed by those skilled in the art as of the filing date that is of relevance. See Tummers v.

Veit v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 81 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

See Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 62 ; T. D. 37940). The first article is designated by items and numbers 6332, 4219, 4220. … In Cochran & Co. v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 62 ; T.