Appeal 2007-0326
Application 09/746,888
composition, especially since Klofta is directed to anhydrous skin lotions
having antimicrobial components for application to tissue paper (Br. 8).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not explained why the
portion of Klofta directed to “natural essential oil antibacterial actives” reads
on the claimed “extracted botanical actives” (Br. 9).
Appellants also contend that Kropf does not contain any teaching
about using nanoscale sterols and sterol esters in compositions applied to
absorbent articles, but only teaches use in cosmetics (Br. 11).
The Examiner contends that Krzysik teaches all aspects of the claimed
invention but teaches a skin care composition that differs from the claimed
skin care composition, while Klofta teaches a skin care composition that
encompasses the claimed skin care composition that results in a “soft,
lubricious feel” (Answer 3-4).
The Examiner contends that Klofta discloses a “botanical active”
(Answer 4).
The Examiner contends that Kropf teaches inclusion of sterols in
lotion compositions “to provide a caring and protective effect and increase
the skin moisture” (Answer 5).
Accordingly, the issues in this appeal are as follows: (1) has the
Examiner established an adequate motivation to use the lotion composition
of Klofta as the applied lotion in the absorbent article disclosed by Krzysik;
(2) does Klofta disclose or teach a lotion component that “reads on” the
“extracted botanical actives” as required by the claims on appeal; and (3)
would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to use the
sterols taught by Kropf in the lotion compositions of Klofta and Krzysik?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013