Case law

Application of Herman Hoeksema

399 F.2d 269 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 8, 1968

DuPont de Ne-mours & Co. v. … In Phillips Petroleum Co. v.

Application of August H. Rauch

390 F.2d 760 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1968

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 9-15 and 17 in appellant’s application 1 for “Veneer Filling Compound” as “unpatentable over Brown et al. 2 or Aedikian … board.

Fearon v. Krasnow

172 F.2d 233 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1949

The cases cited by the board in support of its conclusion are respectively Hull v. Davenport, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1194, 90 F. (2d) 103, 33 USPQ 506 , and Brown, Jr. v. Barton, 26 C. C. P. A. … In the case of Brown Jr. v. Barton, supra, this court reversed the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, citing an authority upon the question of diligence the case of Hull v.

Application of Bernhard W. A. Weber and Hugh D. McLeese

341 F.2d 143 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1965

The examiner considered the claims obvious over the prior art, holding them unpatentable over Brown in view of Will-cox or Huber. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

States v. Straus

5 Ct. Cust. 147 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1914

Gulbenkian v. Stranahan ( 158 Fed., 836 ). … Klumpp v. Thomas ( 162 Fed., 853 -855); Cramer v. Arthur ( 102 U. S., 612, 616-617 ); Hadden v. Merritt ( 115 U. S., 25, 27-28 ); United States v. Klingenberg ( 153 U. S., 93, 100-101 ); United States v.

In re Herthel

156 F.2d 170 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1946

There were no claims allowed and appellant petitioned the board requesting a reconsideration of its decision. … Claims 1, 2, and 3 were rejected by the examiner on the ground that they were “unpatentable over Nelson or Wagner in view of Brown, Penniman, Pew (1,935,953) or Werner.”

Best Moulding Corp. v. United States

51 C.C.P.A. 7 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1963

Referring to United States v. Myers & Co. et al., 28 Treas. Dec. 318 , T.D. 35179 and W. E. Ellis v. United States, 30 Treas. … Under the decision in United States v. Myers (T.D. 35179), it is entitled to free entry, as claimed.

In re Brown

477 F.2d 946 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1973

Clearly, the examiner and the board accepted that criterion, and we do also. … Kalman, “A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems,” ASME Trans., J. of Basic Engr., *949 V. 82, pp. 35-45, Mar. 1960; and R. E. Kalman and R. S.

Application of Robert R. Citron

325 F.2d 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1964

Brown-Pearee rabbit carcinoma, 5. normal male rat skin, and 6. Walker rat carcinoma. … This does not mean, however, as is sometimes implied from the dictum in Isenstead v.

United States v. Lorsch & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 109 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers, Mr. … D. 36906) and Brown & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 309 ; T. D. 36871), in United States v. Boker & Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 243 ; T.

In re Herschler

591 F.2d 693 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1979

or Brown. … Weil v. Fritz, 572 F.2d 856 , 196 USPQ 600 (Cust. & Pat.App.1978); In re Schmidt, 293 F.2d 274 , 48 CCPA 1140, 130 USPQ 404 (1961).

Frank v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 85 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1911

The board heard the protest upon evidence and overruled the same, which ruling is now presented to this court for review. … Enamel v. 2. Enamel (v.): 2. In various extended uses: a. To apply a vitreous glaze by fusion to (surfaces of any kind, e. g., pottery). Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia: Enamel (n.): 1.

In re Waldron

40 F.2d 569 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

A., and Gowen and Bradford v. Arnold, 17 C. C. P. A. 783, 37 F (2d) 430. … Claim 4 is unpatentable for the reasons stated by the Board of Appeals. The decision is affirmed.

In re Taylerson

142 F.2d 72 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1944

Board of Appeals in January of 1943. … considered by the board.

Land v. Kasemann

162 F.2d 498 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1947

Langevin v. Nicolson, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1022, 110 F. (2d) 687, 45 USPQ 92 . … Sweetland v. Don Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 754, 53 F. (2d) 709, 11 USPQ 174 , and authorities therein cited; King v. Young, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 762, 771, 100 F. (2d) 663, 40 USPQ 176 .

United States v. Eimer

4 Ct. Cust. 478 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

It can not be said that they are or any one of them is common yellow, brown, or gray. They seem to be shades of a variety of colors. … The board predicated its decision upon an earlier decision thereof which seems, as stated by the board in this case, to have been arrived at after an exhaustive consideration of the subject by the board.

United States v. Mutual China Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

The board sustained the importers’ contention. The wares here in controversy are represented by eight samples, all entirely white. … Particularly expressive thereupon on this point is the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Koscherak v. United States ( 98 Fed., 596, 599 ).

United States v. Fenton

5 Ct. Cust. 173 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1914

The court, in United States v. Brown (2 Ct. Cust. Appls.; 189, 190, 191; T. … Merwin v. Magone ( 70 Fed., 776, 777, 778 ).

In re McKaughan

148 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1945

The Board of Appeals approved the examiner’s statement with regard to the disclosure in the Brown patent. … We are of opinion, therefore, that claim 11 reads directly on the patent to Brown. For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Cassett v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 465 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1912

See also Schoellkopf v. United States (71 Fed. Rep., 694). Ammonium ich.tb.yol sulphonate is an oily substance. … The decision of the board is reversed.