The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MAY SHANA’A, MICHAEL C. CHENEY,
ROBERT AVENA, KEVIN KEATING,
CRAIG S. SLAVTCHEFF, BRIAN J. DOBKOWSKI,
ROSA PAREDES, MARION L. MARGOSIAK,
CHRISTY BRIDGES, and MARCINA SICILIANO
__________
Appeal No. 2005-1428
Application No. 09/930,320
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ELLIS, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a method of providing a customized personal care
product. The examiner has rejected the claims as obvious in view of the prior art. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Because the cited references would have
suggested the claimed method, we affirm.
Background
The specification discloses a “system that enables a user to formulate a variety
of personal care product compositions to best suit the needs of the consumer.” Page 1.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007