Ex Parte Lang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 9, 2010

11613938 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 9, 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.
11/613,938 12/20/2006 JOHN C. LANG 2950 US 8533
26356 7590 09/09/2010
ALCON
IP LEGAL, TB4-8
6201 SOUTH FREEWAY
FORT WORTH, TX 76134
EXAMINER
FRAZIER, BARBARA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2010 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 JOHN C. LANG
__________

Appeal 2010-005049
Application 11/613,938
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 9, and 13.

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 2010-005049
Application 11/613,938

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are drawn to a dietary supplement for maintaining ocular
health, and may be found in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief.2
(App. Br. 10-13.)
Claims 4, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Lang3 and Leonard.4
We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellant’s arguments
that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning as our own. We also note as to Appellant’s argument
that according to Leonard “any one, or combination of hundreds of
suggested active ingredients could be added to the basic combination of
ingredients” (App. Br. 6), the fact that the combination is one of a number of
obvious combinations of dietary supplements for maintaining ocular health
does not make it any less obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 419 (2007) (“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the
claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.”).
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.

2 All references to the Appeal Brief are to the revised Appeal Brief dated
August 18, 2009. In addition, as the pages of the Appeal Brief have not
been numbered, we designate the page headed “REVISED APPEAL
BRIEF” as page 1, and number the pages consecutively from there.
3 Lang, WO 03/082249 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003.
4 Leonard, US 2006/0134226 A1, published Jun. 22, 2006.
Appeal 2010-005049
Application 11/613,938

3
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

cdc
ALCON
IP LEGAL, TB4-8
6201 SOUTH FREEWAY
FORT WORTH, TX 76134