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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DIETMAR HUGLIN,
JOACHIM F. RODING,
ANDREAS W. SUPERSAXO, and
HANS G. WEDER
__________
Appeal No. 2004-1983
Application No. 10/016,903
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before SCHEINER, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges. 1
Opinion by GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
Dissenting opinion by ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request reconsideration (rehearing) of the Board’s Decision entered
November 24, 2004, in which the examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 was affirmed. After reconsidering the evidence of record, we agree with
Appellants that the initial decision in this case was based on a misinterpretation of the
prior art. Appellants’ request for rehearing is granted.
As reviewed in the decision mailed November 24, 2004, the claims on appeal are
directed to a method for making a cosmetic formulation. In the claimed method, certain
components are mixed in a first step (step α) “with conventional stirring apparatus until a
1 The merits panel that issued the initial opinion in this case included Administrative Patent Judge
Winters, who retired from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before Appellants filed their Request for
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007