Appeal 2007-0625
Application 09/969,299
absorbed on clothes and then used on the skin” (Answer 8 (quoting col. 1, ll.
35-37).
We frame the § 103(a) issue:
Would the skilled artisan have been motivated to combine Trinh and
Brown-Skrobot to obtain a catamenial tampon meeting all the limitations of
Appellants’ claim 1, or would the skilled artisan have been deterred from
such a combination by the teachings in Trinh that their “preferred
preservative may cause skin irritation”?
Findings of Fact Relating to Obviousness
8. Claim 1 does not exclude additional active ingredients, such as
cyclodextrin. (Claim 1 (reciting “comprising”).)
9. Trinh discloses “stable, aqueous odor-absorbing” compositions
comprising uncomplexed cyclodextrin and an antimicrobial preservative
(which can be one of Appellants’ compounds (see FFs 3, 5)), in which the
cyclodextrin is disclosed as the odor-absorbing ingredient (col. 3, ll. 20-30).
10. Trinh’s compositions are “not for use on human skin, especially
when an antimicrobial preservative is present in the composition because
skin irritation can occur” (col. 1, ll. 9-13; col. 26, ll. 43-44) but are applied to
fabric articles that would be placed against human skin, such as clothes, bed
linens, bath linens, sleeping bags, and car seats (col. 26, ll. 51-57).
11. Thus Trinh does not teach away from applying their compositions
onto articles to be placed against human skin, including catamenial tampons.
(FF 10.)
12. Brown-Skrobot discloses “catamenial tampons” treated with
compounds effective to inhibit the production enterotoxins by S.aureus, a
gram positive bacteria. (Brown-Skrobot, Abstract & examples, cols. 9-18.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013