Case law

United States v. Parkhurst

12 Ct. Cust. 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1924

The Government contended before the board that the protests were not filed with the collector within 30 days after the original liquidation and that therefore the board had no jurisdiction to review the action of the collector … —Sgobel v. Robertson ( 126 Fed. 677 ); United States v. Phelps (27 Fed. Cases 521-523); Robertson v. Downing ( 127 U. S. 607, 613 ). The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of John Bulina (Deceased) and Jack T. Brown

362 F.2d 555 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1966

In Graham v. … Clearly, the * * * advance which the Board would attribute to Oochardt et al, was not within the contemplation of the inventors. 4 . See text, supra. 5 . United States v.

Waddell v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 424 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

.) *427 This question was squarely before the Board of General Appraisers (No. 3) in the case of Cox & Schreiber v. United States, T. D. 40086, 45 Treas. Dec. 381 . … Later, the same division of the Board of General Appraisers, in the case of Buschman Bros. v. United States, T. D. 40460, 46 Treas.

Sterling Brewers, Inc. v. Schenley Industries, Inc.

441 F.2d 675 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

the filing of a petition to cancel “at any time” be applicable. *1174 See Hy-Cross Hatchery, Inc. v. … We have considered the opinion in Corr v.

Birmingham v. Randall

171 F.2d 957 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

See Steenstrup v. Heath, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 981, 95 F. (2d) 514, 37 USPQ 205 ; McBride v. Teeple, Jr., 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 961, 109 F. (2d) 789, 44 USPQ 523 ; Buffington et al. v. Blair et al., 28 C. C. P. A. … See Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. D. C. 1, 1901 C. D. 353, and Gallagher v. Hien, 25 App. D. C. 77, 1905 C. D. 624.

Rowe v. Holtz

55 F.2d 468 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1932

In Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. D. … While no authorities based upon a state of facts identical with those at bar have been found, we think Glidden v. Noble, 5 App. D. C. 480; Mergenthaler v. Scudder, supra; Appert v. Schmertz, 13 App. D.

United States v. Overton

6 Ct. Cust. 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1915

So in Stratton v. … More precisely in point is the case of Knauth v. United States ( 155 Fed., 144 ; T.

Patterson v. Clements

136 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1943

In the Collins v. … Sundberg et al. v. Schmitt, 379 O. G. 441 , 1929 C. D. 132 (58 App. D. C. 292, 29 F. (2d) 880; Collins v. Olsen, 503 O. G. 3 , 1939 C. D. 405, 26 C. C. P. A. 1017, 102 F. (2d) 828; Bainbridge v. Walton, 509 O.

In re Dien

680 F.2d 151 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 4, 1982

In Bally Manufacturing Corp. v. … III, sec. 2; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 , 31 S.Ct. 250 , 55 L.Ed. 246 (1910). An advisory opinion by the PTO does not fit in either of those categories and we lack the power to review it. Swingline v.

Bogoslowsky v. Huse

142 F.2d 75 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1944

In the case of Severson v. Olson, 20 C. C. P. A. … See Wirshing et al. v. Pine et al., supra; Collins v. Olsen, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1017, 102 F. (2d) 828.

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).

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 25 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1915

D. 32573), Guthman, Solomons & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286 ; T. D. 32574), Cohn & Rosenberger v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T. D. 32575), and Cohn & Rosenberger et als. v. … At least this court is not warranted in saying' that there was no evidence before the board justifying that finding. In this particular, this case is on all fours with the case of Wolff v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust.

Cattus v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 9 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1913

The board, however, held against these claims, and found that the articles in question were not toys in fact and were not proven to be known commercially as such. In the case of Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. … The court feels justified by the record in refusing to disturb that finding of the board. In the case of the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 102 ; T.

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. 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.

Stein v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 18, 1910

The Board of General Appraisers found as facts: 1. … Muser v. Magone ( 155 U. S., 240 ); United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16 ); United States v. Herman (91 Fed. Rep., 116); United States v. Kenworthy (68 Fed.

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.”

Carey v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1928

In United States v. … Gottlieb v. Thatcher, 151 U. S. 271 ; Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Thompson, 173 *392 Ill. 593 , 50 N. E. Rep. 1089; Mercantile Trust Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 193 ; Dinwiddie v.

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.

Daley v. Trube

88 F.2d 308 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1937

This is not a case like Levy v. Gould et al. (Levy v. Rice), 87 F.(2d) 524 , 24 C.C.P.A. … We need not discuss the Kaisling Case; that case is discussed in Doherty v. Dubbs, supra. ■ In Doherty v.