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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DAVID W. KOENIG
__________
Appeal No. 2006-0185
Application No. 10/159,253
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ADAMS, MILLS and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a personal care absorbent article and method for
inhibiting attachment of yeast to skin, which the examiner has rejected as obvious and
provisionally rejected for obviousness-type double patenting. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 134. We vacate the double-patenting rejection and affirm the obviousness
rejections.
Background
The specification discloses that “[b]y incorporating an effective amount of farnesol
or other isoprenoid compound…into a skin-contacting surface of a personal care article,
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007