Appeal No. 1998-3168
Application No. 08/420,730
fibers into a digester. In essence, rather than flashing the
black liquor to produce sulfur-containing steam, appellant's
method uses hot black liquor to heat a purer form of water,
i.e., water not containing sulfur, to produce a steam.
Appealed claims 1, 11-14, 15, 20 and 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Elmore in view of
Dean. Claims 5-10, 17-19 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elmore in view of
Dean and Schlichtig.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we are in complete
agreement with the examiner that the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for the
reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein,
and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Elmore produces multiple steam
streams by flashing black liquor for the purpose of recovering
heat energy in the system. There is also no dispute that Dean
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007