Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Court Cases

Search
  1. Kropa v. Robie (1951)

    This is an appeal from an adverse award of priority in a patent interference proceeding in the United States Patent Office between a patentee and a patent applicant, in which the Board of Interference Examiners rendered a decision in favor of the patentee. The interference involves the appellant's application of May 21, 1945, said to be a continuation in part via mesne applications of his Serial Nos. 248,535-6-7 applications filed December 30, 1938, and appellees' patent No. 2,369,689, [...]

    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 5725
  2. Application of Newsome W. Gay (1962)

    This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of combination claims 16 and 17 in application Serial No. 468,753 entitled "Rice Cooking Containers and Processes."


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6836
  3. Application of Charles D. Prater and James Wei (1969)

    Woodcock, Phelan & Washburn, Virgil E. Woodcock, Philadelphia, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellants. James H. Littlepage, Washington, D. C., O. G. Hayes, New York City, D. Carl Richards, Dallas, Tex., Richard E. Kurtz, Philadelphia, Pa., James F. Powers, Jr., Dorchester, Mass., of counsel.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 7987
  4. Application of Harold G. Petering and Harry H. Fall (1962)

    This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10-12 of appellants' application for a patent on "Isoalloxazines." Eighteen claims stand allowed by the examiner. The application was filed September 7, 1954.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6750
  5. Application of Deister Concentrator Company, Inc (1961)

    This is an ex parte appeal from the refusal to register on the Principal Register, under section 2(f) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(f), as a trademark for "ore concentrating and coal cleaning tables," the following alleged trademark:


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6608
  6. Application of Rudolf Wiechert (1967)

    This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 of application serial No. 98,026, filed March 24, 1961, for "1a-Methyl Steroids." Claims 11-18 and 25 have been allowed.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 7636
  7. Application of Max O. Robeson (1964)

    Robeson appeals from the board's affirmance of the rejection of claims 2 to 31, all the claims of his application1 for a patent on a chemical process.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 7094
  8. Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. Shabica (1960)

    American Patent Law Association, William H. Webb, Washington, D. C., John D. Upham, John H. Schneider, John R. Janes, John T. Kelton, New York City, Harvey W. Edelblute, Stamford, Conn., Leland L. Chapman, Cleveland, Ohio, The Connecticut Patent Law Association, James Edwin Archer, Robert Ames Norton, John E. Hanrahan, Stamford, Conn., amicus curiae.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6338
  9. Application of Virgil W. Vogel and Paul W. Vogel (1970)

    Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and MATTHEWS, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 8198
  10. Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred Bander (1967)

    This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claim 13 of application serial No. 601,107, filed July 31, 1956, for "New Benzene Sulfonyl Ureas and Process for Their Preparation" Apparently The Upjohn Company has been prosecuting the application.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 8071
  11. Application of Mogen David Wine Corporation (1964)

    Mogen David Wine Corporation appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 134 USPQ 576, refusing registration of the configuration of a decanter bottle, as a trademark for wines, on the Principal Register established by the Trademark Act of 1946.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 7085
  12. Application of Edwin H. Land and Howard G. Rogers (1966)

    This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of thirty claims of application serial No. 565,135, filed February 13, 1956, entitled "Photographic Color Processes." The claims on appeal define both processes and products and are numbered 52-55, 58-61, 63, 64, 66-71, 73-76, 78-86, and 90. The product claims are 69-71 and 82-86. The others are process claims.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 7488
  13. Application of Edward Burton Legrice (1962)

    The issue on these consolidated appeals is whether appellant is entitled under 35 U.S.C. 1611 to a patent on each of his applications serial numbers 709,127 and 709,128, filed January 15, 1958, each entitled "Rosa Floribunda Plant." The Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed the final rejection of both applications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) on the ground that the inventions had been described in printed publications in England more than one year prior to the dates of filing of the [...]

    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6728
  14. Application of Christian Zickendraht and Arthur Buehler (1963)

    A. Ponack, Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, Washington, D. C. (Harry Goldsmith, Bryant W. Brennan, Summit, N. J., Joseph Kolodny, Baltimore, Md., of counsel), for appellants.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6873
  15. Application of Lewis H. Sarett (1964)

    This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, affirming the rejection of claims 8-19 in Sarett's application serial No. 600,163, filed July 26, 1956, entitled "Chemical Compounds and Process for Preparing the Same."1


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 7051
  16. Application of Guido H. Stempel, Jr (1957)

    This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals in which it affirmed the primary examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, 12, 14 and 15, and reversed the examiner as to claim 18, which claim was allowed.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6245
  17. Application of Joseph D. Fisher (1970)

    Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and MATTHEWS, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 8208
  18. Shoe Corporation of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corporation of America (1959)

    This case was originally argued here on January 10, 1958, and an opinion was thereafter rendered by the court on April 23, 1958. A petition for rehearing was subsequently filed by appellee and the case was set for further argument on November 6, 1958. Pursuant to such argument and the additional briefs filed by the parties, the opinion of April 23, 1958, is hereby withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted therefor:


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6334
  19. Application of Bisley (1952)

    This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office rejecting as unpatentable over the prior art claims 4, 14, 19, 20, 23, 25, 35, 36 and 39 of appellant's application for a patent on improvements in a "Household Food Mixer." Seventeen claims (claims 5, 10, 11, 21, 24, 26 through 34, 37, 38 and 40) have been allowed.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 5876
  20. Application of Philip A. Shaffer, Jr (1956)

    This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the holding of the Primary Examiner rejecting as unpatentable claims 29 through 33, the only remaining claims in appellant's application for a patent relating to titrating apparatus.


    Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Docket: 6149

1 of 139 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5