Appeal No. 1995-4804
Application No. 07/861,387
(3) Claims 3, 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Griggs,
Stawicki and Azarniouch; and
(4) Claims 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Griggs,
Stawicki and Elton.
We reverse each of the foregoing rejections.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner primarily relies
on the combined disclosures of Griggs and Stawicki. See
Answer, pages 3-8. Griggs teaches a process for delignifying
and bleaching a lignocellulosic pulp, without the use of
elemental chlorine. See the Abstract. The process involves,
inter alia, washing the pulp in a washing stage with a wash
liquid recycled from another washing step and bleaching the
resulting pulp with ozone in an ozone bleaching stage. See
Figures 1 and 2, in conjunction with column 20, lines 14-21.
The wash liquid may be treated by reverse osmosis to provide
[Griggs and Stawicki] as applied to claim 19 above, and
further in view of [Phillips]." See Answer, page 3. It is
clear from the Answer that the rejection of claim 14 is based
on the combined disclosures of Griggs, Stawicki and Phillips
and that no rejection of claim 19 is set forth in the Answer.
See Answer, pages 3-6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007