Case law

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.

United States v. Murphy

16 Ct. Cust. 461 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1929

Section 501 of the act provides that the decision of the appraiser, the single general appraiser, or the board of three, as the case may be, shall be final and conclusive upon all parties. … See Carey & Skinner v. United States, T. D. 43118, and United States v. F. D. Vandegrift & Co. et al., T. D. 43120, herein decided November 30, 1928.)

United States v. Michelson & Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1924

In Loeb v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 385 ; T. … In McKesson & Robbins v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 459 ; T.

Application of William O. Wesseler

367 F.2d 838 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 20, 1966

The board relied on In re Byers, 230 F.2d 451 , 43 CCPA 803, and Shepard v. … The board relied on the Byers, Shepard and Riley cases and added Miller v.

United States v. American Bead Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 509 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

The board then proceeds to review the cases upon the subject, and on the authority of United States v. Weinberg ( 139 Fed., 1006 ), which followed the case of Lorsch v. … If so, the board was in error, as we held in Cohn v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T.

George E. Hall, Jr. v. Louis B. Taylor

332 F.2d 844 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1964

Wemple et al. v. P[ei]ree et al., 22 CCPA 1064, *847 1935 CD 428, 75 F.2d 998 , 25 USPQ 37 and Becket v. Arness, 27 CCPA 1251, 1940 CD 589, 112 F.2d 1011 , 46 USPQ 48 . … ’s reliance on this court’s decision in Den Beste v.

Application of Ernst Johan Jens Henriksen

399 F.2d 253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1968

From as early as Godfrey v. Eames, 68 U.S. 317 , 17 L.Ed. 684 (1863), to Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co., 304 U.S. 159 , 58 S.Ct. 842 , 82 L.Ed. 1265 (1938) and General Talking Pictures Corp. v. … Appellant cited Indiana General Corp. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 249 F.Supp. 809 , 148 USPQ 312 (S.D.Cal.1966); Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 253 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1958); and Otto v.

United States v. Borgfeldt

7 Ct. Cust. 367 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

See Shallus v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 556 ; T. D. 31552); United States v. Myers ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 257 ; T. D. 31301); Salomon v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 92 ; T. … D. 35503); Edwards’s Lessee v. Darby ( 25 U. S., 206 ); Pennoyer v. McConnaughy ( 140 U. S., 1 ); Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona Board ( 206 U. S., 474 ); United States v. Midwest Oil Co. ( 236 U. S., 459 ).

In re Bergy

563 F.2d 1031 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1977

Guaranty Trust Co. v. … The decision of the board affirming the rejection of claim 5 is reversed. REVERSED. . Merck & Co. v. Chase Chemical Co., 273 F.Supp. 68 , 155 USPQ 139 (D.N.J.1967); Merck & Co. v.

United States v. Lun Chong

3 Ct. Cust. 468 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

Under rule 34 of the board it is incumbent upon a party, desiring to have the testimony of a case previously decided considered, to proceed by motion. See United States v. Oberle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 527 ; T. … See Shallus v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 52 ; T. D. 32347).

Hollowform, Inc. v. Aeh

515 F.2d 1174 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1975

Vandenburgh, Trademark Law and Procedure § 10.34(b) at 407 (2d ed. 1968), citing Aeronautical Electronics, Inc. v. … American Novawood Corp. v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers Inc., 426 F.2d 823 , 57 CCPA 1276 (1970); 1 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 20.2B (1973).

Golden Gate Salami Company v. Gulf States Paper Corporation

332 F.2d 184 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1964

Co. v. Birnbaum, 102 USPQ 38 (Comr., 1954); Pease Woodwork Company, Inc. v. Ready Hung Door Company, Inc., 103 USPQ 240 (Comr., 1954); Feldman v. … See Gillette Co. v. Kempel, 254 F.2d 402 , 45 CCPA 920; Roger & Gallet v.

Application of George J. Handel, Jr

312 F.2d 943 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Company, 123 U.S. 87 , 8 S.Ct. 38 , 31 L.Ed. 100 ; 41 OG 811; 1887 CD 584. … The cases relied on by the board, United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 315 U.S. 668 , 62 S.Ct. 839 , 86 L.Ed. 1105 , and Parker and Whipple Company v.

Cliff Paper Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 186 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

United States v. Hill ( 120 U. S., 169, 182 ); United States v. Philbrick ( 120 U. S., 52, 59 ); Brown v. United States ( 113 U. S., 568, 571 ). In United States v. Recorder (27 Fed. … Brown v. Barry (3 Dallas (3 U. S.), 365); Levey v. Stockslager ( 129 U. S., 470 ). So Congress may rest the-vitality and force of an act upon a contingency that may not be-accepted. Beaty v. Knowler (4 Peters (29 U.

In re Hummer

241 F.2d 742 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1957

strip of paper sheathed plaster board between and adhesively secured to each face board and having its outer edge disposed midway between the offset edges of the face boards, the thickness of the filler strip and of the … The edge joints disclosed are simple square edges to be abutted, tongue and groove of the conventional type and a modification thereof which is a “V” joint.

Serge A. Loukomsky v. Hans Gerlich

264 F.2d 907 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 16, 1959

Stern v. Schroeder, 36 F.2d 518 , 17 CCPA 690; Hartog v. Long, 47 F.2d 365 , 18 CCPA 993; Field v. Stow, 49 F.2d 840 , 18 CCPA 1437. … Den Beste v. Martin, supra, and Mantz v. Jackson, 140 F.2d 161 , 31 CCPA 824, 832.

In Re Abrams

188 F.2d 165 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1951

The Lewis and Baymiller decisions were by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office and that in the Ellis v. Coe case by Barksdale, J., United States District Court of the District of Columbia. … In Cochrane v.

Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co.

473 F.2d 901 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1973

See Ford Motor Co. v. Ford, 462 F.2d 1405, 1407 , 59 C.C.P.A.-, - (1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 1109 , 93 S.Ct. 910 , 34 L. Ed.2d 690 (1973); Commerce Drug Co. v. … See International Paper Co. v. Valley Paper Co., 468 F.2d 937 , 60 C.C.P.A. - (1972).

Austin v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

This claim was sustained by the board and accordingly the protest was overruled. … Microutsicos v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 342 ; T. D., 32078); Godillot v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 408 ; T. D. 32168). The decision of the board is affirmed.