Appeal No. 1998-3049
Application No. 08/463,558
Appellants also argue that the claims of the copending
application do not teach pumping the pulp into a mixer. However,
we are not convinced by this argument since one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to employ a pump to transport the
pulp from an earlier reactor to a mixer.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the examiner that the
subject matter of claims 18 through 23, 25 through 30 and 32
through 41 would have been obvious over claims 18 through 35 of
copending Application 08/462,691. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection
of claims 18 through 23, 25 through 30 and 32 through 41.
OTHER ISSUES
As a final point, we note that the phrase “substantially non-
consumable carrier gas” is not described in the application as
originally filed. While the phrase includes various carrier gases,
the application as originally filed appears to be limited to using
oxygen.
Also, claim 27 appears to be inconsistent with the subject
matter recited in claim 18. While oxygen being a substantially
non-consumable carrier gas connotes that at least small part of
oxygen acts as a bleaching agent, parent claim 18 clearly is
limited to using ozone as the only bleaching agent.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007