Case law

Steinmayer v. Ramsey

132 F.2d 1007 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1942

Accordingly, the Board of Appeals did not err in holding that appellee was not estopped by judgment to contest the involved interference. See Saunders v. Browne, 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 881, 891, 117 F. (2d) 547. … (Patents) 816, 80 F. (2d) 525; Saunders v. Browne, supra.

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 513 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1911

Jessop & Moore Paper Co. v. Cooper (46 Fed. Rep., 186); White v. United States (69 Fed. Rep., 93); and United States v. Colby & Co. (153 Fed. Rep., 883). … the rule established by tliis .court in United States v.

United States v. Boston Paper Board Co.

23 C.C.P.A. 372 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1936

Tower & Sons v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 417, T. … United States v. Porto Rico Coal Co., 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 288, T. D. 43716. In the case of United States v.

True Fit Waterproof Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 489 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest, General Appraiser Brown dissenting, and the importers appealed. *491 The garments are of two kinds, one of which we will designate as class A and the other as class B … In accordance with the decision rendered by *493 this court in Field & Co. v. United States (7 Ct. Cust Appls., 332; T.

In re Samour

571 F.2d 559 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 23, 1978

In re Brown, supra, 329 F.2d at 1011 , 51 CCPA at 1260, 141 USPQ at 249; see In re Coker, supra; In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269 , 55 CCPA 1493, 158 USPQ 596 (1968). … In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538 , 179 USPQ 421 (Cust. & Pat.App.1973); In re Brown, supra, 329 F.2d at 1010-11 , 51 CCPA at 1259, 141 USPQ at 248-49.

Application of the Realistic Company

440 F.2d 1393 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

As appellant points out, citing Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. … Wella Corporation v. La Maur, Inc., 312 F.2d 831 , 50 CCPA 916 (1963). We find the mark CURV’ to be likewise not merely descriptive of appellant’s goods. Accordingly, the decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. .

In re Jensen

35 F.2d 69 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

In Benjamin, and Brown, supra, we find substantially the same .structure. … The Board of Appeals in rejecting the claim stated: In our opinion the examiner was right in his holding or Brown et al, might he taken as the basic reference, there being no invention in making their screen element 5 horizontal

Pritchard & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 16, 1911

Barber, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise in this case is a brown paper, known as kraffc paper, chiefly manufactured in Norway and Sweden, and the question is whether it is dutiable under paragraph … In Arthur v. Cumming et al. ( 91 U. S., 362 ) the court said: The rule to be followed in the construction of revenue statutes in cases like this is well settled in this couri.

Application of Herman Hoeksema

379 F.2d 1007 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1967

Appellant’s reliance on the Brown case is unwarranted. … We reversed the board’s decision in that case because the reference itself stated that “Attempts to prepare fluorine-containing silicone homopolymers have been unsuccessful” thus showing Brown’s homopolymers to be not in

In re Fessmann

489 F.2d 742 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 10, 1974

Appellant requested reconsideration by the board of its decision. … In Brown , the court was in effect saying that the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-proeess claims because of their peculiar nature than would be

Maderia Embroidery Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1919

The case of United States v. Brown ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 189 ; T. … The same principle was affirmed in United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. D. 32074) and United States v. Brown ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 102 ; T. D. 33374).

In re Corbin

136 F.2d 713 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1943

The examiner held the curving of the rear end of the cam rails to be a common expedient where a flight arm runs over the end of the rail “as seen in Brown or Hamachek.” … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Raymond C. Wallace

376 F.2d 968 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1967

Both Evans et al. and Brown et al. disclose the use of rosin to prevent oxidation of metal surfaces, Evans et al. mentioning can ends of tin plate and Brown et al. mentioning aluminum. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Menzel & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 16 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 26, 1918

The board sustained the claim for free entry. … See United States v. Dunlop & Ward ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 218 ; T. D. 35505). In this connection see also United States v. Neuman & Schwiers ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 228 ; T. D. 35467).

United States v. Gertzen Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 428 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1918

The protest was submitted to the Board of General Appraisers. … United States, supra, and are again discussed in the case of Beuttell & Sons v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 409 ; T. D. 37666), which case is decided concurrently herewith.

In re Stack

87 F.2d 210 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1937

As to the validity of the claim set out above, which was involved in Byron Weston Co. v. L. L. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

New York Merchandise Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

No such finding was made by either General Appraiser Sullivan or General Appraiser Brown. … General Appraiser Brown simply concurred in the legal conclusion reached by his associates without making any finding of fact whatever. This court in United States v. Cabrera Bros., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 82 , T.

Application of A. Louis Delisle

406 F.2d 1386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1969

to the Brown reference as well as to Hunt. … The decision of the board is, accordingly, affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 232,863 filed October 24, 1962 for “Insecticide and Method.’

In re Coker

463 F.2d 1344 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 17, 1972

The board agreed with the examiner. … In re Brown, 51 CCPA 1254, 329 F. 2d 1006 , 141 USPQ 245 (1964).

Parfums d'Orsay Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 104 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

The board denied the application of the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Upon the authority of Wm. A. Brown & Co. et al. v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 ; T. … D. 40026), decided concurrently herewith, the motion of the Government to dismiss is overruled and the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is hereby affirmed.