BOT - Anything but charting, page-1036

Novel but no inventive step??

WO2018148786-WOSA-20180823-9389 contains the opinion:

"It is considered that a person skilled in the art would, in seeking a solution to the problem being addressed, be motivated to combine the disclosures of each of documents D1 and either D6 or D7 and arrive at a solution which is the same as the claimed invention.
Hence claims 15-18 lack inventive step."

This may weaken one of the moats, but FDA moat remains, there may be a copyright moat too.

However

IMO the opinion is weak, as

[1] D1 is plainly a fishing expedition with a grab-bag full of bases - where is penetration addressed?
[2] D6 and D7 say that CBD affects acne - where is penetration addressed?
[3] One can ask: where are the persons skilled in the art who were sufficiently motivated to arrive at a solution?
... 99% hard work and 1% inspiration.
[4] the opinion appears to admit there is a problem and this very fact, and the length time between D6 together with D7 and the present proposed invention may suggest that motivation alone might not be sufficient to arrive at a solution.

I wouldn't worry too much.