Ex Parte Farage

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 23, 2012

11282895 (B.P.A.I. May. 23, 2012)

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.
11/282,895 11/18/2005 Miranda Aref Farage 10218 3015
27752 7590 05/23/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2012 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 MIRANDA AREF FARAGE
____________

Appeal 2010-003907
Application 11/282,895
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by
Minerath (US 2004/0003670 A1; pub. Jan. 8, 2004). App. Br. 2. Claims 2
and 3 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-003907
Application 11/282,895

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for testing a product with a group of individuals
identified as having vulva irritation without physical
examination of an individual's vulva area, said method
comprising the steps of
collecting facial skin information as an indicator of vulva
irritation from an individual through a question or
questionnaire, wherein the facial skin information is self-
reported facial skin sensitivity and self-reported facial skin
redness or erythema;
placing individuals self-reporting facial skin sensitivity and
self-reported facial skin redness or erythema in a first group of
individuals having vulva irritation;
placing individuals not self-reporting facial skin sensitivity and
self-reported facial skin redness or erythema in a second group
of individuals not having vulva irritation; and
testing a product with the first group of individuals.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1 and 4-6 as a group. App. Br. 3-4. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claims 4-6 stand or fall with claim 1. Appellant argues that there is no
disclosure in Minerath of collecting facial skin information in the form of
self-reported facial skin sensitivity and facial skin redness or erythema from
an individual to determine if they have vulvar irritation, particularly when it
purposefully excludes individuals having facial skin conditions from its
method. App. Br. 4. Appellant also argues that Minerath uses certain
selection criteria to select test subjects for testing of facial tissues and to
exclude test subjects with excessive dryness and/or redness or subjects with
atopic dermatitis and/or eczema at the test sites. App. Br. 4 (citing [0031]).
Appeal 2010-003907
Application 11/282,895

3
We agree with the Examiner that Minerath collects self-reported facial
skin information such as self-reported facial skin sensitivity and facial skin
redness or erythema from an individual as in indication of skin irritation.1
Ans. 4 (citing Minerath, para. [0031]). Minerath identifies subjects with a
known hypersensitivity to facial tissues, cosmetic products, soaps, or lotions,
and subjects with rashes, abnormal pigmentation, excessive dryness and/or
redness, atopic dermatitis and/or eczema at or near the testing sites. Ans. 4,
5; Minerath, para. [0031]. The Examiner also had a reasonable basis for
finding that this information is self-reported through an interview process.
Ans. 4; Minerath, para. [0029] (test subjects are pre-screened). We also
agree that Minerath may group individuals by those who report skin
irritation and those who do not. Ans. 4 (citing Minerath, paras. [0030-
0031]). Test subjects may be healthy subjects with no skin damage or sick
subjects with damaged skin or varying degrees of soreness. Minerath, paras.
[0006, 0029, 0030]; Ans. 5. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive in
view of the particular findings set forth by the Examiner and do not apprise
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As such, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 4-6.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Minerath. is AFFIRMED.2

1 The Examiner found that Minerath teaches testing of bath tissue, which is
used in the vulva area. Ans. 5.
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to consult the most currently applicable guidance from the Director for
determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2010-003907
Application 11/282,895

4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls