Appeal No. 95-2022 Application No. 08/063,056 attention to the specification, page 6, first paragraph, explaining that whole bagasse lignin is "a by-product obtained from the extraction of juice from sugar cane," i.e., it is a lignin from "sources other than wood." In contrast, Forss describes "[b]lack liquor from a kraft cook on pine wood" (column 12, EXAMPLE 10). Manifestly, all lignins are not the same. The examiner has not established that the nature of the lignin (polymerized product) in Forss, EXAMPLES 10 and 11, is the same or substantially the same compared with the nature of the lignin in claims 3 and 35. Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of unpatentability. The rejection of claims 3 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Forss is reversed. In conclusion, we affirm the examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 7 through 10, 12, 13, 15, 27 through 34, 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Forss. We reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Forss. The examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART -7-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007