Appeal No. 2006-0185 Page 6
Application No. 10/159,253
sesquiterpenoid, e.g., farnesol, combined with an antibiotic can be “applied in the form of
a solution to be…wiped on [a] surface.” Column 4, lines 14-16. As discussed above,
Piccini teaches a disinfecting wipe that “comprises a substrate and a disinfecting agent.”
Column 3, lines 12-14. Piccini also teaches that the “disinfecting wipes…allow
significant reduction in the amount of bacteria on an infected surface. Indeed, effective
disinfecting may be obtained on various micro-organisms including…more resistant
micro-organisms like fungi (e.g., Candida albicans) present on infected surfaces.”
Column 8, lines 12-20. As a result, it would have been obvious from the Piccini and
Johnson references, and not from improper hindsight reasoning, to provide a wipe
having farnesol and an antimicrobial compound to inhibit Candida albicans.
Appellant also argues that “Johnson only teaches sesquiterpenoids such as
farnesol are useful for enhancing uptake of distinct, separate antimicrobial compounds
(Col. 3, lines 3-15), but Johnson nowhere discloses that farnesol, or any other isoprenoid
compound, is alone (without the combined antimicrobial agent) effective in inhibiting
Candida albicans.” Appeal Brief, page 10 (emphasis added).
As we understand it, Appellant’s argument is that Johnson does not provide
motivation because the reference does not disclose that farnesol, by itself and without
other agents, is effective in inhibiting Candida albicans. However, we also do not find
this argument persuasive.
Claim 1 is not limited to a composition in which farnesol is the only active
ingredient. Rather, claim 1 uses open claim language (“comprising”) and therefore reads
on applying a composition containing farnesol and anything else, including other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007