Case law

Headley v. Bridges

48 F.2d 938 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1931

Field v. Colman, 47 App. D. C. 189. … Among them are Allen v. United States ex rel. Lowry, 26 App. D. C. 8; In re Fullagar, 32 App. D. C. 222; Cooper v. Gold, 34 App. D. C. 194; Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 App. D. C. 540; Parker v. Craft et al., 49 App. D.

Roger v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 201 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1924

it was therefore a local tax and should not have been included under the ruling in United States v. … The board was clearly right on this point, and the question was not pressed by the importers before this court. The Board of General Appraisers held that the ruling in the case of Passavant v. United States (18 Sup. Ct.

The Magnavox Company v. Multivox Corporation of America

341 F.2d 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1965

As well as pointing to the fact that “Multi” means many and “Magna” means big, appellee also relies heavily on New Castle Products, Inc. v. … For the same reasons we do not find Air Products, Inc. v.

Shindelar v. Holdeman

628 F.2d 1337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 4, 1980

Peeler v. Miller, supra note 8. … The board supported its finding of prima facie unreasonableness by citing Judge Rich’s concurring opinion in Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277 , 180 USPQ 388 (CCPA 1974). .

In the Matter of the Application of William B. Dickinson and Bernard L. Zenitz

299 F.2d 954 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1962

The board affirmed the examiner, finding support in Blicke v. … On the other hand, Blicke v.

Charles B. Swain and Albert G. Schuessler v. Bob C. Crittendon

332 F.2d 820 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1964

E. g., Loukomsky v. Gerlich, 264 F.2d 907 , 46 CCPA 805. Its legal significance here is whether it discloses the subject matter of the present counts. We think that it does. In Den Best v. … In reversing the board in Loukomsky v.

In re Abcor Development Corp.

588 F.2d 811 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1978

Citing Stix Products, Inc. v. … The Supreme Court, in Beckwith v.

In Re Boyce

144 F.2d 896 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1944

Kraft, 113 F.2d 115 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1408, 1409; Crane et al. v. Carlson, 125 F.2d 709 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 879, 881; In re Lincoln et al., 126 F.2d 477 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 942, 948; Foss v. … Even if we should be of opinion that it is not an applicable reference, we nevertheless could not reverse the decision of the board upon the reasons of appeal before us. The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

McKesson v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 17, 1923

—Burgess et al. v. Converse ( 4 Fed. Cas. 726 ); Gibb v. Washington ( 10 Fed. Cas. 288 ); United States v. Beer ( 150 Fed. 566 , affirming 142 Fed. 199 ); Ystalifera Iron Co. v. Redfield et al. ( 23 Fed. 650 ); Loeb v. … Loeb v. United States, supra.

United States v. Mulhens

4 Ct. Cust. 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1913

Its opinion in the case at bar was rested upon the authority of Hempstead v. United States ( 168 Fed., 450 ), Woodruff v. United States ( 168 Fed., 452 ), and the case of United States v. Zinn ( 2 Ct. Cust. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Mikus v. Wachtel

504 F.2d 1150 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1974

On authority of Petisi v. Rennhard, 363 F.2d 903 , 53 CCPA 1452 (1966), the board found August 14, 1967, the date of appellee’s species reduction, to be its priority date. … Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261 , 56 CCPA 1272 (1969). At oral argument appellants called attention to our recent opinion in Blicharz v.

United States v. Wakem & McLaughlin (Inc.)

13 Ct. Cust. 37 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1925

The Supreme Court, in Magone v. Heller, 150 U. … In Darling & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 86 T.

Knapp v. Anderson

477 F.2d 588 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1973

Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217, 226-227 , 52 CCPA 906, 918 (1964); White v. Lemmerman, 341 F.2d 110, 113 , 52 CCPA 968, 972 (1965). … Knowles v. Tibbetts, 347 F.2d 591, 594 , 52 CCPA 1800, 1804 (1965); Koval v. Bodenschatz, 463 F.2d 442, 447 , 59 CCPA(1972).

Application of Kyrides

159 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

The examiner, in his statement to the board upon appeal, rejected the instant appealed claims on the ground that while this court, in Kyrides v. … The Board of Appeals, upon appeal to it, affirmed the examiner’s rejection upon Andersen’s application involved in the interference in Kyrides v.

Vernon C. Applegate and John H. Howell v. Otto Scherer, Heinz Frensch and Gerhard Stähler

332 F.2d 571 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1964

The case principally relied on to support this theory, which appears also to have been relied on heavily before the board, is Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157 , 27 CCPA 1136. The board correctly pointed out that Smith v. … Recently in Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891 , 49 CCPA 1343, we expressed agreement with views of the Board of Patent Interferences characterizing Smith v.

Edwin J. Vandenberg v. William B. Reynolds

242 F.2d 761 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

In Snider v. … In Davis v.

Kronfeld v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

See Martin, jr., v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 384 ; T. D. 32982). … See Gump Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 137 ; T. D. 32384).

Champion Products, Inc. v. Ohio State University

614 F.2d 763 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1980

Those in which appeal from board decisions to strike some pleadings has been permitted are readily distinguishable. In Toro Co. v. … In Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch Co., supra, the stricken pleadings recited copyright infringement, an issue not within the jurisdiction of the board.

Devoy v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 444 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

D. 13243); In re Schorestene Frères v. United States (suit 2155, Dec. 12, 1900, Circuit Court, Southern District of New York); In re Rumpp & Sons (T. D. 15724); In re Schorestene Frères (T.D. 23349). … D. 30085) and we find nothing in it to induce us to recede from the views which we expressed in the case of Tilge & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 97 ; T.

Richard C. Loshbough v. Kenneth C. Allen

373 F.2d 747 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1967

Loshbough v. Allen, supra. … As we stated in Vandenberg v.