Case law

John W. Anderson v. Anthony C. Scinta, Anthony C. Scinta v. John W. Anderson, (Two Cases)

372 F.2d 523 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1967

We agree with the board. Swan v. Thompson, 80 F.2d 374 , 23 CCPA 806, cited by Anderson, is not authority for reaching a contrary conclusion. … Hendrickson & Nelson v. Ronning & Ronning, 76 F.2d 137 , 22 CCPA 1040; Loukomsky v. Gerlich, 264 F.2d 907 , 46 CCPA 805. The decision of the board in PA 6941 is affirmed.

United States v. Cordero

1 Ct. Cust. 107 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

See United States v. Vowell ( 5 Cranch, 368 ); United States v. Arnold ( 24 Fed. Cas., 872 ); Meredith v. United States ( 13 Pet., 494 ); In James’s case, G. A. 4869 (T. D. 22828). … We are constrained to hold that the board was in error in this holding.

07-29 905

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 30, 2015

Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79 (2014). The central inquiry is, "whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability." Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. … Neither nonservice-connected disabilities nor advancing age may be considered in the determination. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993).

C. S. Emery & Co. v. United States

41 Cust. Ct. 7 · United States Customs Court · Jun 26, 1958

, bam boards and the like. … In the case of United States v. Myers & Co. et al., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 541 , T.

In re Perrine

111 F.2d 177 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1940

See also General Electric Co. v. Nitro Tungsten Lamp Co., 266 Fed. 994 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Warren R. Attwood

354 F.2d 365 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1966

Furthermore, we believe that the claim limitations to frame members for use in adjustable framing construction etc. should be given weight under our decision in Kropa v. … This clause the board disregarded. The Bisley case does not support the board.

Application of Leslie Frederick Wiggins

397 F.2d 356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1968

Braun (Wolf). 2 After careful consideration of “the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” Graham v. … In United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 , 86 S.Ct. 708 , 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966), a somewhat similar situation existed in the prior art. There the prior art suggested Adams’ combination “was both dangerous and inoperable.”

United States v. Dorn

13 Ct. Cust. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest upon the theory that, in United States v. Stegemann, decided May 5, 1924, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198 , T. … D. 40179, this court had intended to depart from the rule previously declared in United States v. Francklyn, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 54 , T. D. 33306, and in United States v. Hirsch, Stein & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 121 , T.

Conde Nast Publications, Inc. v. Miss Quality, Inc.

507 F.2d 1404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1975

Cohen & Sons Co., v. … However, it appears that the board cited the third party registrations primarily to show the meaning of “Vogue” in the same way that dictionaries are used. See Hancock v.

In re Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.

616 F.2d 523 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1980

The decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED. . … Star Watch Case Co. v. Gebruder Junghans, A. G. 46 CCPA 929, 267 F.2d 950 , 122 USPQ 370 (1959).

F. Brody & Sons Co. v. Commissioner

11 T.C. 298 · United States Tax Court · Sep 16, 1948

The Commissioner also cites, without comment, United States v. Mellon, 279 Fed. 910 , and United States v. Davison, 1 Fed. (2d) 465. … See Athens Roller Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner, 136 Fed. (2d) 125; Sutherland v. Bohn, 33 Fed. (2d) 643; and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Grand National Bank, 69 Fed. (2d) 177.

Moses v. United States

137 Ct. Cl. 374 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 16, 1957

Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137 ; Fly v. United States, 120 C. Cls. 482 . … Said Board of Beview was a board of review of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, on the 20th day of July 1953 this accused, Bobby J.

Application of George H. Hitchings, Gertrude B. Elion and Irving Goodman

342 F.2d 80 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1965

In so deciding, the board relied upon Lavin v. Pierotti, 129 F.2d 883 , 29 CCPA 1235, and Whittier v. Borchardt, 154 F.2d 522 , 33 CCPA 1023. … We therefore hold that the board committed error in refusing, on the ground of res judicata, to re-examine the disclosure of the parent application. To the extent that Lavin v. Pierotti and Whittier v.

Duerr v. Potts

90 F.2d 117 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

Appellee did not file an appeal to this court from the decision of the Board of Appeals holding that he could not make counts 1 and 2. Appellants appealed from the board’s decisión as to counts 5, 6, and 7 only. … (Patents) 827, 45 F. (2) 916, and cases cited; Herthel and Tifft v. Dubbs, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1128, 65 F. (2d) 188; Angell v. Morin, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1018, 69 F. (2d) 646; Josleyn v. Hulse, C. D. 1908, 34.

Akol v. United States

166 Ct. Cl. 182 · United States Court of Claims · May 15, 1964

The report of this Board constitutes a “solid administrative finding” of disability, as that phrase was used in Aflague, et al. v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 80, 91 , 309 F. 2d 753, 758 (1962). … Stanford, Plaintiff No. 27) v. United States, 165 Ct.

Thomas v. Montgomery, III v. Department of Health and Human Services

2016 MSPB 8 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 5, 2016

Gingery v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 175, ¶ 6 (2010); Walker v. … Based on the foregoing, we find that the Board has jurisdiction over the appellant’s right-to-compete claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A) 2 and (a)(1)(B). See Styslinger v.

Shafi Nasimi Construction and Logistics Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jan 6, 2016

The 90-day appeal period to the Board, 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a), expired on 3 March 2012. … [Citations omitted] See also Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Application of Vincent J. Frilette and Paul B. Weisz

436 F.2d 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1971

Frilette v. Kimberlin, 412 F.2d 1390 , 56 CCPA 1242 (1969). Appellants then filed the divisional application which is now before us. … See Frilette v. Kimberlin, supra, 412 F.2d at 1396 , 56 CCPA at 1250.

Portland General Electric Co. v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 46 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2011

In Indiana Michigan Power Company v. … In Northern States Power Co. v.

V-Q

9 I. & N. Dec. 78 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1960

MAritat OF V—Q- In EXCLUSION Proceedings A-10550819 Deeifigd by Board September 16,1980 Admission—Occurs when finding of admissibility has been communicated … Patton v. Tod, 297 Fed. 385; United States v. Lasarescu, 104 F. Supp. 771; United States v. V asilatos, 209 F.9.d 195.)