Appeal No. 2006-0185 Page 8
Application No. 10/159,253
or animal skin. For example, one might apply a cream or ointment comprising the
sesquiterpenoid and antimicrobial compound to a wound.” Column 2, lines 18-22.
Moreover, the “composition [may be used] to treat surface wounds or as a general
antibacterial treatment.” Column 3, lines 58-59.
We agree with the examiner that these disclosures would have made the
presently claimed personal care absorbent article prima facie obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, it would have been obvious to add farnesol and an
antimicrobial compound to a wound dressing in an amount effective to inhibit the
attachment of Candida albicans to skin. Motivation to include farnesol and an
antimicrobial compound on a wound dressing is provided by Johnson’s disclosure that, in
the presence of a sesquiterpenoid such as farnesol, microorganisms such as fungi are
inhibited and the efficacy of antimicrobial agents is increased. Column 2, lines 17-22;
Column 3, lines 12-15. As discussed above, the range of effective amounts disclosed in
the specification overlaps the range of effective amounts disclosed by Johnson.
Appellant argues that “one skilled in the art reading DiPippo (without the benefit of
Applicant’s Specification) would not find teaching or suggestion therein that any or all
isoprenoid compounds inhibit Candida albicans.” Appeal Brief, page 13. Appellant
argues that the examiner is “using improper hindsight in substituting the farnesol of
Johnson into the combination of DiPippo” when “the [e]xaminer is clearly gleaning
information from Applicant’s Specification”. Appeal Brief, page 13 (emphasis added).
As we understand it, Appellant presents the same arguments for improper
hindsight reasoning discussed above. Again, we do not find this argument persuasive
for the reasons stated above. To summarize, Johnson teaches the use of farnesol for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007