Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
Our independent review of Ahs indicates a clear teaching of screening and
double screening (see, e.g. Ahs, column 3, lines 9-35 for a description of screening
upstream and downstream of the main reactor; Mannbro, column 5, lines 33-39 for a
discussion of coarse screening); and washing upstream and downstream (see, e.g.
Ahs, figures 2-4, reference numerals 2, 16, 11 and 5). We therefore find no error in
the determination that the subject matter of claim 20 would have been obvious.
Turning now to claim 16, the Appellants state that the claim calls for coarse
screening of the pulp with a coarse screen and washing the coarse rejects from the
screen, and practicing step (c) by mixing oxygen with the pulp in a mixer and practicing
step (f) by transporting the pulp to one of several locations. (Appeal Brief, page 11,
lines 14 et seq.).
The Appellants further state that they are unable to find a disclosure of coarse
screening in Ahs, Ahs does not teach the features of claim 16 including the direct
transport. (Appeal Brief, page 11, lines 20 et seq.), and Mannbro requires a second
reactor (Appeal Brief, page 12, line 1).
We will not repeat the discussion of each of the elements of claim 16, but again
direct the Appellants’ attention to Mannbro, column 5, lines 34-37 where coarse
screening is discussed. As Ahs teaches washing before screening (figures 2-4), and
the Appellants themselves have admitted placement of the screenroom is a matter of
process economy of the mill, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of this claim as
obvious.
B. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahs in view
of Mannbro, further in view of Prough.
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007