Case law

In re Nalbandian

661 F.2d 1214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 15, 1981

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the examiner of appellant’s application, serial No. 792,482, filed April … We arrive at this conclusion under Graham et al. v.

Hickok v. Commissioner

32 T.C. 80 · United States Tax Court · Apr 13, 1959

In LeTulle v. … In Bazley v.

Abbott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 5, 2021

With respect to board certification, Dr. … Brown v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-426V, 2012 WL 952268, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 29, 2012). In Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0043 V, 2020 WL 1243238, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.

Application of Edgar G. Heyl

379 F.2d 1018 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 5, 1967

See 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e); Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine & Mfg. Co., 315 U.S. 759 , 62 S.Ct. 865 , 86 L.Ed. 1171 (1942). … earlier than the board’s refusal here.

In re Bowen

492 F.2d 859 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1974

complying with the board’s statement, thus placing claim 2 in condition for allowance. … See In re Shokal et al., 1957 C.D. 234; General Electric Co. v. Wabash Co., 37 USPQ 468 .

Application of Claus L. Sporck

301 F.2d 686 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

Western States Machine Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co., 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 345, 347 . … Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366 , 29 S.Ct. 652 , 53 L.Ed. 1034 .

Strickland v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 419 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 9, 1929

Hall v. Wisconsin, supra; Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 310 . … See United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 102, 103 ; Untied States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 511, 512 ; Adams v.

Weeks v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 24, 2019

In Silverman v. … Brown v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (2006). The court assumes, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Weeks could have asserted a timely due process claim when she filed her complaint in the instant case.

Christopher S. Scoggins v. Department of the Army

2016 MSPB 32 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 19, 2016

See Hooker v. … See Mudd v.

Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation

310 F.2d 952 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

See: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, [ 333 U.S. 591 , 68 S.Ct. 715 , 92 L.Ed. 898 ], 77 U.S.P.Q. 29 * * *; American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. … On the basis of the ■ record and the arguments before us we think the board erred. Applying the principles set out in *956 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

CTS Corp. v. Cronstoms Manufacturing, Inc.

515 F.2d 780 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1975

Hollywood Water Heater Co. v. Hollymatic Corp., 274 F.2d 679 , 47 CCPA 782 (1960); J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 , 52 CCPA 981 (1965). … See American Throwing Co. v. Famous Bathrobe Co., 250 F.2d 377 , 45 CCPA 737 (1957); Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp. of America, 266 F.2d 793 , 46 CCPA 868 (1959).

Wise F&I, LLC; Financial Gap, Administrator LLC; Vehicle Service Administrator LLC; and Administration America LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 23, 2016

Consolidation Consolidation is discretionary with the Board and may be ordered sua sponte. See, Venture Out Props. LLC v. Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1887, 1889 (TTAB 2007); 8440 LLC v. … Leave to Amend Pleadings Upon granting a motion to dismiss, the Board may exercise its discretion to allow a plaintiff the opportunity to cure a defective pleading. See Intellimedia Sports Inc. v.

Wise F&I, LLC; Financial Gap, Administrator LLC; Vehicle Service Administrator LLC; and Administration America LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 23, 2016

Consolidation Consolidation is discretionary with the Board and may be ordered sua sponte. See, Venture Out Props. LLC v. Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1887, 1889 (TTAB 2007); 8440 LLC v. … Leave to Amend Pleadings Upon granting a motion to dismiss, the Board may exercise its discretion to allow a plaintiff the opportunity to cure a defective pleading. See Intellimedia Sports Inc. v.

Salinas v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 399 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2002

Walker v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 77, 80 (1986) citing Spagnola v. Stockman, 732 F.2d 908, 912 (Fed.Cir.1984); United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed.Cir.1983); and Montalvo v. … Finally, “where an employee is provided a means of redress under the CSRA, that is, an appeal to the Board, the employee does not have an independent cause of action in the Claims Court.” McClary v.

In re Sebald

143 F.2d 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

Upon due consideration, and especially in view of the decision in Aronld v. Bishop et al., 1 Fed. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed as to both claims 8 and 13.

Jackson

578 F.2d 1388 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 9, 1978

Jackson v. Secretary of U.S. Air Force, D.D.C. … 1948 discharge (see, e.g., Eurell v.

Bishop v. United States

673 F.2d 1369 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 24, 1982

Cason v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 424, 432 , 471 F.2d 1225, 1230 (1973). … Sanders v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 962 (1975); Horn v. Schlesinger, 514 F.2d 549 (8th Cir.1975); Doyle v. United States, 220 Ct.

Feltex Corporation v. Dutchess Hat Works

71 F.2d 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1934

, and Judge Brown concurred “in the result of” the judgment for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion. … See Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Cust. App. 93, T. D. 40026, and cases therein cited.” We are unable to see wherein these observations are applicable to tlie ease at bar.

PBS&J Constructors, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jul 25, 2014

PBS&JC was a sister company to Peter Brown Construction (Brown). Atkins North America, Inc. (Atkins), the parent company, had design responsibility. … PBS&JC began doing business as Brown at project start. 2 Kleinfelder Central (Kleinfelder) was Brown's geotechnical engineer and Alliance Geotechnical Group of Austin, Inc., (Alliance) was its geotechnical inspector.

Robbins v. Steinbart

57 F.2d 378 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

Leonard v. Everett, 52 App. D. C. 90, 281 F. 594 ; Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D. C. 78, 24 F.(2d) 1004 . … See, also, Howell v. Hess, 122 O. G. 2393 , 1906 C. D. 217.