Appeal No. 1998-3049
Application No. 08/463,558
chemicals. What is true for one is not true for the
other. Their bleaching conditions, effects, and many
other aspects are very different. Ozone would not work
as a bleaching agent under the bleaching conditions in
the Canadian patent, particularly the high pH. The pH is
such a radically different condition that one could not
with confidence extrapolate from the Canadian patent
about what would occur if one agitated pulp with ozone.
The examiner, however, has not provided any evidence contrary to
the expert opinions in the Reeve and Greenwood declarations. In
fact, the examiner states (Answer, page 5) that:
Oxygen could provide bleaching in acidic ranges, e.g.[,]
see the abstract of the cited SAMUELSON ET AL reference
of oxygen bleaching at pH 6.0...This would overlap the
ranges used for ozone bleaching, e.g.[,] pH 1.0-7.0......
It appears to be the examiner’s position that ozone is not the only
bleaching agent in the ozonation bleaching processes described in
the prior art. It then follows that the prior art ozonation
bleaching processes relied upon by the examiner do not teach or
suggest using ozone as the only bleaching agent.
In view of the foregoing, we cannot agree with the examiner
that the evidence as a whole provides a suggestion sufficient to
arrive at the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. Hence, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting
all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007