Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
savings in equipment compared to if an additional oxygen reactor is utilized in the
rejects recirculation.
We are unpersuaded by the conclusory statements contained in the declaration,
and the data in the articles.
Specific to Exhibit C, we find that some of the purported benefits are attributed to
other features. Specifically, at page 106, column 2, lines 7, it is stated that:
Because there are [sic] fractionated three-stage washing, the washing loss to
bleaching is extremely low, less than 5 kg/COD/ADMT. The consumption of
bleaching chemicals has dropped considerably and the quality of the pulp has
improved.
Even if the improved results are somehow to be attributed to the claimed
invention, they are not unexpected from a recirculating system in general. Ahs
maintains a kappa number (Ahs, column 2, lines 7-12) and results in a reduction in
chlorine consumption, purer pulp with improved strength, and reduced energy (Ahs,
column 1, lines 45-62).
Turning now to Exhibit D, the results are equivocal vis-à-vis the claimed subject
matter. Initially, it should be noted, that of all the experimental or mill set ups described,
only Figure 7 appears to recirculate rejects to the brown stock before delignification.
Furthermore, there seem to be several screening and separating steps for the reject
portion between the delignification step and the return to the brown stock. The process
steps referenced by F3/0, 3xRB300HD, F2/0, and KW4R are undefined, although the
figure caption appears to refer to them as light reject removal, sand separation, and
reject washing.
Secondly, throughout the article various tests are run, but none are correlated
directly to the setup of Figure 7. The conclusion states merely that “[t]he screenroom
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007