Appeal No. 2006-1544
Application 10/024,621
More particularly, while being a pre-teen, a teenager or a senior
citizen is without doubt a “life stage” involving certain
psychological aspects, they nonetheless also each represent a
“birth-related classification.” Moreover, appellants’ own
specification appears to support such a broad interpretation of the
“birth-related classification” terminology. Note particularly, page
13 of the specification, wherein it is indicated that “birth-related
classifications may include astrological horoscope signs, Karma,
Numerology... [and] other classifications based on birth day, birth
month, birth year, [etc].” In addition, in the same vein as Maloney,
appellants’ specification also indicates that such birth-related
classifications “could be based more on emotional, social, and
psychological factors than on hard science” (page 13, lines 10-11).
In the final analysis, and contrary to appellants’ arguments,
it is our determination that Maloney does provide guidance relating
to beauty advice in the form of recommended beauty products based on
or as “a function of at least some of the profile information and
[a]... birth-related classification” i.e., the life stage
classification disclosed in Maloney.
Since we have found appellants’ argument concerning the
rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6, 9 through 15, 17 through 20, 24
through 27, 29 through 36, 43 through 47, 51 through 53, 56, 59
through 62 and 64 through 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007