The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.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 2007-0533
Application 09/930,320
Technology Center 1600
__________
Decided: September 7, 2007
__________
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and RICHARD M.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
of providing a customized personal care product, which the Examiner has
rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013