Appeal No. 2005-2743 Page 3
Application No. 09/847,388
properties.” Nevertheless, while Castro discloses the benefit of using the fiber
containing composition for therapeutic purposes, Castro fails to teach a fiber
containing composition that also contains any of the active agents set forth in
appellant’s claimed invention. Final Rejection, page 4.
To make up for this deficiency the examiner relies on Sebillotte-Arnaud.
According to the examiner (id., emphasis removed), “Sebillotte-Arnaud teaches
compositions containing a cosmetically and/or dermatologically acceptable
hydrophilic medium, water and optionally an active agent which makes it possible
in particular to prevent and/or control pigmentation of the skin or to control greasy
skin….” In this regard, the examiner finds (Final Rejection, bridging paragraph,
pages 4-5 emphasis removed), “Sebillotte-Arnaud discloses that active agents
which can be dissolved in the composition, [include] … octopirox, erythromycin,
clindamycin, miconazole, … and anti-inflammatories such as hvdrocortisone,
etc….”
Based on this evidence, the examiner concludes (Final Rejection, page 5)
that given Castro’s fiber containing composition utility in controlling oil and
moisture on the skin, it would have been prima facie obvious at the time
appellant’s invention was made to “have looked in the art for specific active
agents for treating greasy skin” that could be added to Castro’s composition. As
we understand the examiner’s reasoning, upon considering the prior art, a
person of ordinary skill would turn to the disclosure of Sebillotte-Arnaud for a
teaching of active agents that could be added to Castro’s composition for treating
greasy skin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007