Appeal No. 2006-0185 Page 7
Application No. 10/159,253
antimicrobial agents, for inhibiting Candida albicans. The product of claim 1 is
suggested by the prior art.
Appellant also argues that there is no expectation that farnesol would inhibit
attachment to skin. Appeal Brief, page 11. However, claim 1 is directed to a product
having certain limitations. The product defined by claim 1 is suggested by the cited
references. It makes no difference, with respect to obviousness, that the references
would have led a skilled artisan to combine their teachings for a reason different from
that of Appellant. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (“[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
. . . that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed
compound or composition will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered
by applicant.”).
Claim 1 reads on the product made obvious by Piccini and Johnson and is
therefore unpatentable. Claims 3-6, 8-24, and 26-57 fall with claim 1. The examiner’s
rejection is affirmed.
4. Obviousness in view of DiPippo and Johnson
The examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 8-24, and 26-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over DiPippo in view of Johnson. DiPippo teaches “a burn dressing in the form
of a…synthetic fabric containing a therapeutic…gel.” Column 2, lines 11-15.
Johnson teaches an isoprenoid compound, or more specifically, “a
sesquiterpenoid [that] include[s] farnesol” as discussed above. Furthermore, Johnson
teaches that “the sesquiterpenoid and antimicrobial compound [can be applied] to human
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007