Case law

Arthur William Anderson and William Lawrence Truett v. Gustav Pieper, Hans Rickert and Eberhard Stein

442 F.2d 982 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1971

In our view the holdings in Teter v. Kearby [ 169 F.2d 808 ], 36 CCPA 706, 79 USPQ 65 71, 72 ), and Farrington et al. v. … Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261 , 56 CCPA 1272 (1969); see also Beeber v. Grogh, 403 F.2d 743 , 56 CCPA 880 (1968); Patterson v. Hauck, 341 F.2d 131 , 52 CCPA 987 (1965).

D. J. Bielzoff Products Co. v. White Horse Distillers, Ltd.

107 F.2d 583 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1939

Ely & Walker Dry Goods Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 24 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 1244, 1247, 90 F.2d 257 . … See Gilmore Oil Co., Ltd., v. Wolverine-Empire Refining Co., 21 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 943, 69 F.2d 532 .

In re Boyce

32 C.C.P.A. 718 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1944

Bourdon v. Kraft, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1408,1409,113 F. (2d) 115, 46 USPQ 207 . Grane et ad. v. Carlson, 29 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 879, 881,125 F. (2d) 709, 52 USPQ 495 . In re Lincoln et al., 29 C. C. P. A. … Dailey No. 4, page 46S; Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 470 O. G. 1219 .

Continental Nut Co. v. Le Cordon Bleu

494 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1974

on More-house Manufacturing Corporation v. … See the ease of Continental Nut Company v. Cordon Bleu Limited, Cust. & Pat.App., 494 F.2d 1397 , decided this date,

United States v. Fragele Bros.

12 Ct. Cust. 381 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1924

In Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261 ; T. … (p. 1953); Hubble v. Renick ( 1 Ohio St. 171 ); Osborne v. Heyward (40 N. Y. App. Div. 78); Estho et al. v. Lear, adm’r ( 7 Pet. 129 ); Barber v. Coit ( 118 Fed. 272 ); Standard Computing Scale Co. v.

American Drill Bushing Company v. Rockwell Manufacturing Company

342 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1965

We think the board was correct. As this court stated in Wincharger Corp. v. … Kauten-berg Co. v. Ekco Products, supra. Further, a reasonable expansion of appellee’s business to the goods of appellant should *1023 not be precluded. Magnavox Co. v.

Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd.

568 F.2d 1342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 22, 1977

See Plastilite Corp. v. Kassnar Imports, supra note 6; Hydra Mac, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 507 F.2d 1399 , 184 USPQ 351 (Cust. & Pat.App.1975). … Appellant refers to a “leaf” design (within which the words and farm design appear), while the board refers to “oval” design with the notation that the design “is not strictly speaking an oval.” See Marcalus Mfg. Co. v.

Roy E. Ferree v. Harry D. Shephard, Jr. And Pearl Thelma Griffiths, Administratrix of the Estate of Norman J. Griffiths

384 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

Glass v. De Roo, 239 F.2d 402 , 44 CCPA 723 (1956). In Glass v. De Roo, supra, the Board of Patent Interferences had awarded priority of invention to appellees. … Bac v. Loomis, 252 F.2d 571 , 45 CCPA 807 (1958); Den Beste v. Martin, 252 F.2d 302 , 45 CCPA 798 (1958); Wirkler v. Perkins, 245 F.2d 502 , 44 CCPA 1005 (1957); Ray v. Kronmiller, 167 F.2d 518 , 35 CCPA 1085 (1948).

Meyer v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

The petition addressed to this court for a review of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is entitled “Petition: United States Court of Customs Appeals, Meyer & Lange, et al., petitioners, v. … Peoples Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. East Tennessee Telephone Co. ( 103 Fed., 212 ).

Application of Osplack

195 F.2d 921 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1952

Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403 , 22 S.Ct. 698 , 46 L.Ed. 968 ; In re Walch, 87 F.2d 511 , 24 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 894. … Baldwin-Southwark Corporation v. Tinius Olsen Testing Mach. Co., 3 Cir., 88 F.2d 910 .

United States v. National Importing Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 186 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers and this court have ruled upon this question oh several occasion's, and we think the law is too well settled for prolonged discussion or extended citation. In the United States v. … —United States v. Lyon & Healy ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 438 ; T. D. 33873), Wyman v. United States (T. D. 28924), Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 494 ; T. D. 31528), Worthington v.

Kenneth L. Berry v. Watt W. Webb, William A. Wissler and William D. Forgeng

412 F.2d 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1969

Recently, this court stated, in Beeber v. … Applying the test for adequacy of corroboration quoted from Beeber v.

In re Kahan & Weisz Jewelry Mfg. Corp.

508 F.2d 831 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1975

Thus, the board, in essence, shifted the burden of proof to appellant without first establishing that DUCHARME is primarily merely a surname. … Ex’r Ch.1951); Ex parte Gemex Co., 111 USPQ 443 (Com’r Pat.1956); Drexel Enterprises, Inc. v. Colby, 138 USPQ 1 (S.D.Cal.1963). Therefore, the decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. .

Frederick Gash, Inc. v. Mayo Clinic

461 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1972

See Morehouse Manufacturing Corp. v. J. Strickland Co., 56 CCPA 946, 955, 407 F. 2d 881, 888 , 160 USPQ 715 , 721 (1969). Tbe tbrust of appellant’s position is that the board stressed tbe wrong facts. … However, the board considered It and there Is no Indication that appellees objected.to it below. Certainly the board did not treat such an objection.

Raiche v. Foley

103 F.2d 920 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1939

The cases of Domboorajian v. Domboorajian et al., 235 Mich. 668 , 209 N. W. 846 ; Clement v. Richards v. Meissner, 1904 C. D. 321; and Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U. S. 745 , are cited. … Appellee points out that in the Clement v. Richards v.

In re Phillips

593 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1979

has no substantial practical application except in connection with such a computer; that the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. … On reconsideration, the board says simply that appellants’ process is an “algorithm” (“a procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem”) within the meaning given that term in Benson and Parker v.

Application of Preformed Line Products Company

323 F.2d 1007 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1963

Co., Inc. et al. v. … Kohnstam, Ltd. v.

Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.

425 F.2d 1265 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1970

Paul Hydraulic Hoist Company, 83 USPQ 315 (CCPA, 1949); Bardahl Oil Company et al. v. Atomic Oil Company of Oklahoma, Inc. [ 351 F.2d 148 ], 146 USPQ 637 (CA 10, 1965) and In re W. A. … To support this conclusion, heavy reliance was placed by the board on this court’s opinion in DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656 , 48 CCPA 909 (1961).

Marshall v. Ledwinka

67 F.2d 495 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1933

McCabe v. Cramblet, 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1220, 65 F. (2d) 459; Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 907, 46 F. (2d) 570 ; Brogden v. Slater, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988. … Oldroyd v. Morgan, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1111, 57 F. (2d) 358; Andrews v. Nilson, 27 App.D.C. 451 ; Ryder v.

Application of Strain

187 F.2d 737 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1951

We had occasion to study and apply that decision in the case of Manny v. … Kearby, 169 F.2d 808 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 706; and Ware v.