Appeal 2007-0625
Application 09/969,299
13. Brown-Skrobot’s antibacterial compounds are monoesters and/or
diesters of polyhydric aliphatic alcohols and C8-C18 fatty acids (col. 6, ll. 12-
29) and do not include any aromatic compounds within Appellants’ claims.
14. However, according to Brown-Skrobot, Canadian patent
1,192,701 discloses a tampon and an antimicrobial compound which can be
phenol, a compound within Appellants’ claims (col. 4, ll. 14-33; FF 3).
15. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
Brown-Skrobot’s tampon with Trinh’s odor-absorbing composition
containing an aromatic compound within the scope of Appellants’ claimed
“first active ingredient” to obtain Appellants’ claimed catamenial tampon.
(See FFs 8-14.)
16. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation that
the combined teachings would provide a catamenial tampon according to
claim 1, given the teachings of the two references. (FFs 8-15.)
Discussion of the § 103(a) Issue
Based on our findings and those of the Examiner, we conclude
Appellants’ claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made. (See FFs 3-6, 8-16;
Answer 3-5, 7-9.)
With respect to Appellants’ argument that there is no motivation to
combine the two references, we find otherwise. (FFs 15, 16.) Trinh teaches
the value of their composition as an odor absorbent, a useful quality in
tampons. (FFs 4-6, 9.) Thus, the skilled artisan wishing to create an odor-
absorbing tampon, as well as one that inhibits enterotoxins, would have
recognized the value of the combination. (FF 15.) The fact that Trinh
teaches inclusion of Appellants’ “first active ingredient” primarily to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013