Ex Parte Ebel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 15, 2010

10461701 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/461,701 06/13/2003 James Patrick Ebel 9277 6263
27752 7590 10/15/2010
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KWON, BRIAN YONG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES PATRICK EBEL
____________

Appeal 2010-007454
Application 10/461,701
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
STEPHEN WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1, 4, and 6, the
only claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-007454
Application 10/461,701

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a method of promoting sleep. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced in the “CLAIMS APPENDIX” of
Appellant’s Brief (App. Br. 9).
Claims 1, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rall,2 Patrick,3 Jacobson,4 and Bissett5.
We affirm.

ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support a
conclusion of obviousness?

ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant’s contentions, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that
claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Rall, Patrick,
Jacobson, and Bissett. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for
the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by
reference.

2 Judie C. Rall, Vitamin B3: Mental Clarity and Tranquility, (2001)
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:57SojBqNWAoJ:www.unhinderedlivin
g.com/VitaminB3.html+vitami... (accessed April 19, 2006).
3 Patrick, US 5,496,827, issued March 5, 1996.
4 Jacobson et al., US 6,677,361 B2, issued January 13, 2004.
5 Bissett et al., WO 99/47114, published September 23, 1999.
Appeal 2010-007454
Application 10/461,701

3
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rall, Patrick, Jacobson, and Bissett is
affirmed. Claims 4 and 6 fall together with claim 1.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

alw

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL LEGAL DEPARTMENT - IP
SYCAMORE BUILDING - 4TH FLOOR
299 EAST SIXTH STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202