Case law

Jean N. Nicolaou v. Michael Cooperman

438 F.2d 993 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1971

However, despite the board’s reliance on Brand v. … Appellee suggests that the board cited Brand v.

United States v. Wertheimer Bros.

2 Ct. Cust. 515 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1912

Velvet and plush ribbons were held not to be pile fabrics, Jaffray v. United States (71 Fed. Rep., 953; 77 Fed. … See Arnold v. United States ( 147 U. S., 494 ), In re Kursheedt Mfg. Co. (54 Fed. Rep., 159, and G. A. 4120).

Lavin v. Pierotti

129 F.2d 883 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1942

In support of his decision, the Primary Examiner cited the cases of Lee et al. v. Vreeland, 49 App.D.C. 200 , 262 F. 654 , and Skinner v. Swartwout, 1922 C.D. 26. … Doherty v. Dubbs, 68 F.2d 373 , 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 807.

David W. Piel, Deceased, by Tillie Margaret Piel v. Eugene H. Falkner

426 F.2d 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1970

See, e. g., Mims v. Central Mfrs. Mutual Ins. Co., 178 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1949); Struthers Scientific & Int’l Corp. v. General Foods Corp., 290 F.Supp. 122 (S.D.Tex.1968); Kilian v. … Cf., Land v.

United States v. Neuman

6 Ct. Cust. 228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

The protest was submitted to the Board of General Appraisers and the same was sustained, the board holding that the merchandise was entitled to free entry under paragraph 417 as biscuits, bread, or wafers not specially provided … Schoenemann v. United States ( 119 Fed., 584 ); Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93 ; T. D. 31110).

Chandler v. Mock. Mock v. Chandler

202 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1953

Mock, 450 F.2d 563 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1183; Burns v. Curtis, 172 F.2d 588 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 860; Powell v. Poupitch, 167 F.2d 514 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1080; Balogh v. … See also Kruger v. Resnick, 197 F.2d 348 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 994; Mock v. Johnson, 52 App.D.C. 300 , 286 F. 639 ; Paul v. Hess, 24 App.D.C. 462 .

United States v. Bauer

3 Ct. Cust. 343 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1912

Montgomery, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case involves the same questions considered by the court in the case of Stein v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 36 ; T. … The question presented is substantially the same as in the case of Stein v. United States (T. D. 31007 and T. D. 31525).

Application of Lynn B. Wakefield and Frederick C. Foster

422 F.2d 897 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1970

THE BOARD The board affirmed all of the examiner’s rejections. We shall separately treat each affirmance and state our opinion with regard thereto. … Co. v. Linde Air Products, 336 U.S. 271 , 69 S.Ct. 535 , 93 L.Ed. 672 (1949). Moreover, there is no statutory authority for rejecting claims as being “unnecessary.”

Holmes v. Kelly

586 F.2d 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1978

In the similar case of Sze v. Bloch, 458 F.2d 137 , 59 CCPA 983, 173 USPQ 498 (1972), this court stated that the board was not bound by an ex parte determination of the Board of Appeals on a right to make issue. … to this court’s statement in Sze v.

United States v. Coroneos Bros.

9 Ct. Cust. 220 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

We are not prepared to say that the board erred in following Ha-bicht v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 10 ; T. D. 30772). … The board, was of the opinion that this finding brought the case-within United States v. Wallace ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 142 ; T. D. 33413).

In re Wyer

655 F.2d 221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 30, 1981

In support of this proposition the board cited the leading cases of Philips Electronic & Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. v. Thermal & Electronics Industries, Inc., 450 F.2d 1164 , 171 USPQ 641 (3d Cir. 1971), and I.C.E. … Philips Electronics & Pharmaceutical Industries *226 Corp. v. Thermal & Electronic Industries, Inc., 450 F.2d 1164, 1170 , 171 USPQ 641, 645 (3d Cir. 1971); I.C.E. Corp. v.

In re Marriott Corp.

459 F.2d 525 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1972

Board in In re Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc., reported in 156 USPQ page 257. … The menus are not unlike the point-of-sale counter and window displays which this court found adequate in Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 57 CCPA 1173, 427 F. 2d 823 , 166 USPQ, 34 (1970).

In re Hellsund

474 F.2d 1307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 15, 1973

The board cited no precedents in support of the last statement but I will supply some: These two are from the Solicitor’s brief: Armour & Company v. Swift & Company, 168 USPQ 269 (D.C. N.D. … Ill. 1970), (Findings of Fact 18,19 and Conclusion of Law 2); Lorenz v. Berkline Corp., 137 USPQ 29 (D.C. N.D. Ill. 1963) (Conclusions of Law 11, 17, and 21.) See also Sutter Products Co. v.

Bache v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 507 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1916

importer, or on the board’s own order. … See also United States v. American Thermo-Ware Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 9 ; T. D. 31571); United States v. American Thermo-Ware Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 21 ; T. D. 33218); and American Thermo-Ware Co. v.

United States v. Kastor

6 Ct. Cust. 52 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appeals. … Later the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in United States v.

United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 338 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

The board found as a fact that there wa,s present about 5 per cent of dirt, gravel, etc., and directed a reliquidation accordingly, relying for authority on the case of Seeberger v. Wright ( 157 U. … .: In that case (Seeberger v.

United States v. Rolls-Royce of America (Inc.)

13 Ct. Cust. 259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

This was the conclusion reached in McKesson & Robbins v. … In United States v. Robinson & Co., 12 Ct. Cust.

In re Hogan

559 F.2d 595 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1977

Godfrey v. … V.

Thomas v. Michael

166 F.2d 944 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1948

See Bogoslowsky v. Huse, 31 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1034, 1038, 142 F. (2d) 75, 78, 61 USPQ 367 . … See, Larson v. Eicher, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1497, 49 F. (2d) 1029, 1031, 9 U. S. Pat. Q. 461; Fenton R. Brydle v. Harry H. Honigbaum, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 773, 54 F. (2d) 147, 11 U. S. Pat. Q. 219; Kyrides v.

Application of Chester John Cavallito and Allan Poe Gray

282 F.2d 357 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1960

As was said in White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47 , 7 S.Ct. 72, 74 , 30 L.Ed. 303 , “The claim is a statutory requirement, prescribed for the very purpose of making the patentee define precisely what his invention is.” … See Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan, 276 U.S. 358 , 48 S.Ct. 380 , 72 L.Ed. 610 ; Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Celanese Corp. of America, 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 138 , and cases there cited.