Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ReportsThe Court, 1933 - Customs administration |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
18 C. C. P. A. Patents affidavit alleged apparatus APPEAL from Patent appealed claims Appeals is affirmed appellant appellant's application appellant's patent appellee appellee's awarding priority Board of Appeals brief chamber circuit cited Commissioner of Patents comprising connection construction contention Court of Customs Customs and Patent decision delivered the opinion device disclosed disclosure divisional application double patenting Dubbs edges electric electrode element Examiner of Interferences feature flanges GARRETT HATFIELD heat held interference proceeding inventor involved lant's LENROOT lubricant machine magnetostrictive mark material means metal method Miller of counsel motion operation Oral argument party Patent Appeals Patent Office tribunals patentable subject matter pipe piston Poro portion Presiding Judge pressure prior art produce question reasons record reduction to practice registration reissue Serial shown shows specification structure subject matter Sun-Maid supra switch T. A. Hostetler Howard testimony thereof tion trade-mark tube United States Court United States Patent valve
Popular passages
Page 844 - Any person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof...
Page 1148 - ... that no other person, firm, corporation, or association, to the best of the applicant's knowledge and belief, has the right to use such trademark in the United States, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance thereto as might be calculated to deceive...
Page 990 - A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent...
Page 772 - But a mere carrying forward or new or more extended application of the original thought, a change only in form, proportions or degree, the substitution of equivalents, doing substantially the same thing in the same way by substantially the same means with better results, is not such invention as will sustain a patent.
Page 1116 - No one can claim protection for the exclusive use of a trade-mark or trade-name which would practically give him a monopoly in the sale of any goods other than those produced or made by himself. If he could, the public would be injured, rather than protected, for competition would be destroyed. Nor can a generic name, or a name merely descriptive of an article of trade, of its qualities, ingredients, or characteristics, be employed as a trade-mark, and the exclusive use of it be entitled to legal...
Page 834 - Provided, That no mark, which consists merely in the name of an individual, firm, corporation, or association, not written, printed, impressed, or woven in some particular or distinctive manner or in association with a portrait of the individual, or merely in words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used, or of the character or quality of such goods, or merely a geographical name or term, shall be registered under the terms of this act...
Page 1035 - ... not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention or discovery thereof...
Page 1030 - Whenever any patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new, if the error has arisen by inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, the commissioner shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the duty required by law, cause a patent for the same invention, and in accordance...
Page 852 - ... such as to render oral testimony peculiarly untrustworthy; particularly so if the testimony be taken after the lapse of years from the time the alleged anticipating device was used.
Page 780 - This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the primary examiner...