Ex Parte Huglin et al - Page 1

                          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                                for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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