Case law

United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal

2 Ct. Cust. 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 16, 1911

The board cites the following casos in support of its conclusion: In re Courtin (T. D. 23557); Carnes v. Maxwell (3 Blatch., 420; 5 Fed. Cases, 90); Schmeider v. Barney (6 Fed. Rep., 150); Howland v. … The suggestion made in the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in United States v.

In re Carleton

599 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1979

As the Second Circuit said in Scher-ing Corp. v. … The Solicitor’s brief states that “the issue is whether the decision of the Board of Appeals was clearly erroneous.” However, “obviousness is a legal conclusion based on factual evidence, Graham v.

Pengilly v. Copeland

40 F.2d 995 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

We agree with the Board that there is no evidence to sustain the contention that Copeland should be held to have suppressed or concealed the invention under the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, 1898 C. D. 510, 84 O. … Steubing v. Hennessy, 50 App. D. C. 203, 269 F. 719 , and cases therein cited.

Shallus Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 87 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

In United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. … In this connection see also United States v. Dieckerhoff, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384 , T. D. 33796; United States v. Wolff & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 34943; and Morris, Mann & Reilly (Inc.) v.

In Re FISCHER

58 F.2d 1058 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1932

He argues that the said application discloses the feature heretofore referred to, of two sheets with their adhesive surfaces in contact, and that he is, under the rule of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 , 40 S. … D. 32, in whjeh the office announced the rule, based upon Field v. Colman, 40 App. D.

Alfred Electronics v. Alford Manufacturing Company

333 F.2d 912 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 9, 1964

In connection with that point, the board cited its previous decision in Lytle Engineering & Mfg. Co., 125 U.S.P.Q. 308 . Appellant questions that ruling, relying particularly on Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Minn. … Midwest Homes, Inc. v. Midwest Houses, Inc., 120 U.S.P.Q. 406 (Comr., 1959) ; Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation, 121 U.S.P.Q. 605 (Comr., 1959) ; and Zell Products Corporation v.

Koval v. Bodenschatz

463 F.2d 442 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 3, 1972

See Goodrich v. Harmsen, 58 CCPA 1144, 1153, 442 F. 2d 377, 383 , 169 USPQ 553 , 559 (1971); Hradel v. Griffith, 54 CCPA 911, 367 F. 2d 851 , 151 USPQ 580 (1966). … Feigelman, 59 CCPA 834, 455 F. 2d 596, 604 , 172 USPQ 580 , 587 (1959); Klemperer v. Price, 47 CCPA 729, 271 F. 2d 743 , 123 USPQ 539 (1959). Some, in fact, find clear expression in the board’s opinion.

Taylor v. Swingle

136 F.2d 914 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1943

appearing pro se) contends, as he contended below, that the tests referred to did not constitute reduction to practice but argues that if the court should hold otherwise then Taylor is estopped under the doctrine of Mason v. … view, Taylor has failed to establish reduction to practice prior to Swingle’s filing date, or diligence during the critical period, it is unnécessary to consider the matter of abandonment under the doctrine of the Mason v.

Crown Radio Corp. v. Soundscriber Corp.

506 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1974

As we stated in General Electric Company Limited v. … Stanadyne, Inc. v. Lins, 490 F.2d 1396 (CCPA 1974). In Miles Laboratories, Inc. v.

Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss

433 F.2d 779 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1971

On the one hand, the board apparently agreed with the position of Curtiss that the question was not ancillary to priority under Vandenberg v. … United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 , 32 L.Ed. 450 (1888) ; Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U.S. 434 , 20 L.Ed. 858 (1871).

American Burtonizing Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 652 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

Three decisions Charlton v. Kelly, 2 Alaska 332, 534 , State v. Loveless, 17 Neb. 424 , 426, and Coyle v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. … Ringk & Co. v. United States, 47 Treas. Dec. 264 , is also relied upon by appellant.

In re Hatch

167 F.2d 1003 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1948

Brogden v. Henry B. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 E. (2d) 988, 5 U. S. Pat. Q. 145, and Neumair v. Malocsay, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1349, 77 F. (2d) 622, 25 U. S. Pat. Q. 468. … See Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1053, 96 F. (2d) 301, 37 USPQ 505 .

Coca-cola Co. v. Seven-up Co.

497 F.2d 1351 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1974

The language employed in describing the mark involved in Vita-Var Corp. v. … Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., 165 USPQ 644 (TTAB 1970). .

Application of Everett F. Gustafson

331 F.2d 905 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1964

The term appears to have got into the law about 1873 in Hailes v. Van Wormer, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 353 . 22 L.Ed. 241 . … “For instance, in Reckendorfer v.

Schweyer v. Thomas

68 F.2d 953 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1934

Isom v. Dubbs, 58 App. D. C. 25, 24 F.(2d) 467 . In the case of Dreyfus v. Lilienfeld, 49 F.(2d) 1062 , 18 C. C. P. … Petersen v. Thomas, 56 App. D. C. 113, 10 F.(2d) 908 .

Jenks v. Knight

90 F.2d 654 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1937

Nevertheless, we there upon that record affirmed the decision of the Board in awarding priority to Green. The subject-matter of the Phelan v. … The Board was persuaded that its decision was controlled for the most part by the rule laid down in Chapman v. Beede, 54 App.D.C. 209 , 296 F. 956, 958 , which was decided subsequently to Chapman and Chapman v.

Richard C. Loshbough v. Kenneth C. Allen

359 F.2d 910 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1966

the Board of Patent Interferences to amend and suspend the interference. … Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 222 (1962).

Midland International Corporation v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc.

434 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1970

In short, it is contended that the board *1403 reached the right end by the wrong route. Appellee cites, in support of its contention, the ease of J. E. Riley Inv. Co. v. … Midland Cooperatives, Inc. v. Midland International Corp., No. 15184 — 1. 3 . Opposition No. 44,364, serial No. 156,089, filed October 29, 1962. 4 . Midland Cooperatives, Inc. v. Midland International Corp., supra.

In Re Byck

48 F.2d 665 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

Co. v. Merrow Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 93 F. 206 , C. D. 1898, page 584.” … Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 259 , and cases cited.

Gallagher v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

D. 31676); Oelrichs & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. D. 32091); and Harris v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 5 ; T. D. 32286). … The court assumed upon the authorities cited that the presence of samples before a general appraiser or a board of three general appraisers might be waived. That doctrine was set forth by this court in Maddaus v.