Appeal No. 95-2022
Application No. 08/063,056
attention to the specification, page 6, first paragraph,
explaining that whole bagasse lignin is "a by-product obtained
from the extraction of juice from sugar cane," i.e., it is a
lignin from "sources other than wood." In contrast, Forss
describes "[b]lack liquor from a kraft cook on pine wood" (column
12, EXAMPLE 10). Manifestly, all lignins are not the same. The
examiner has not established that the nature of the lignin
(polymerized product) in Forss, EXAMPLES 10 and 11, is the same
or substantially the same compared with the nature of the lignin
in claims 3 and 35. Accordingly, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of unpatentability.
The rejection of claims 3 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Forss is reversed.
In conclusion, we affirm the examiner's decision rejecting
claims 2, 7 through 10, 12, 13, 15, 27 through 34, 36 and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Forss. We reverse the
rejection of claims 3 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Forss.
The examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007