Legal Opinion

In re Wilding

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 3, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 76-544PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LANE, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 19, and 23-25 in application serial number 642,208, filed May 29, 1967, entitled “Soybean Granules.” We reverse.

The Invention

Appellant’s invention is a method for producing a protein food product having an expanded, elongated cellular structure similar to that of lean meat. Claim 1 adequately describes the method.

1. A method for preparing an improved protein food product comprising: forming a dough containing from about 15% to about…

2Cases cited6 opinions

Application of Klaus Heinz Risse, Ulrich Horlein and Wolfgang Wirth. Application of Ulrich Horlein, Wolfgang Wirth and Klaus Heinz RisseCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
In re McKellinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
In Re ColeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
Pingree v. HullCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
Application of Edward C. Filstrup, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

In Re Charles H. Kroekel and Frederick A. PfaffCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
Sulfur-Tech Water Systems, Inc. v. KohlenbergDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001