Legal Opinion
In re Fout
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided April 8, 1982No. Appeal No. 81-547PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge. '
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) holding claims 1-20 in appellants’ application1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Invention
Appellants claim an improvement over the process of Pagliaro et al. (“Pagliaro”) which was the subject of our decision in In re Pagliaro, 657 F.2d 1219, 210 USPQ 888 (CCPA 1981). The Pagliaro process is a method for producing a decaffeinated vegetable material such as coffee or tea. A fatty material is used to extract caffeine from the vegetable material. The…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In re BassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- In re NomiyaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- In re EhrreichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- Application of Roy F. Lopresti and Jerome C. SalmonsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- In re HellsundCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Pharmasterm Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- In Re SchreiberCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Medtronic, Inc., and Med-Rel, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Riverwood International Corporation v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.