Appeal No. 1997-0229
Application No. 08/039,260
in the art” (emphasis added). 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(1999);
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 14, 148 USPQ 459, 465
(1966). In ascertaining the differences between the claimed
subject matter as a whole and the prior art, express claim
limitations cannot be ignored. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v.
Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 449, 230 USPQ 416,
420 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 823 (1987).
With these legal principles in mind, we consider the
examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through 14 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Maxham ‘599, Maxham ‘258, and Bauman. In explaining the
rejection, the examiner states as follows:
The Maxham patents show the process
substantially as claimed. The Maxham patents do not
disclose reuse of the separated filler and fines
component. Instead this component is ultimately
sent to waste disposal. In view of well known
environmental concerns and need to recycle waste,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought
alternative means of reusing filler and fines
separated from the useable long fiber component in
Maxham. Bauman et al. provides the necessary
teaching of reusing filler and fines component of
paper mill waste sludge to reduce environmental
pollution and reduce the waste of raw materials used
in paper making. Thus, it would have been obvious
to recycle the separated filler and fines in Maxham
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007