Appeal No. 1996-0647
Application No. 07/871,401
“Technical News”, Paper Technology, p. 36, January 1989
(hereafter “Technical News”).
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Granum in view of "Technical News" and
Kringstadt (Answer, page 3). Claim 4 stands rejected under3
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the references above
further in view of Nonni (Answer, page 4). Claim 7 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Granum
(Id.). Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Kringstad or "Technical News" (Answer,
page 5). We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 8 over4
3The final rejection included rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 4,959,124, and rejections
including Berry et al., "Toward Preventing the Formation of
Dioxins During Chemical Pulp Bleaching", Pulp and Paper
Canada, pp. 48-58, August 1989. These rejections and the
Berry et al. reference were withdrawn in view of appellant’s
responses dated Nov. 25, 1994 (Paper No. 24) and Dec. 21, 1994
(Paper Nos. 27 and 28), although only the response dated Dec.
21, 1994, was entered by the examiner (see the Advisory
Actions dated Dec. 14, 1994, Paper No. 25, and Jan. 17, 1995,
Paper No. 29). Accordingly, these rejections and the Berry et
al. reference are not before us in this appeal.
4In the restatement of this rejection on page 5 of the
Answer, the examiner applies the Berry et al. reference in the
obviousness analysis (see the discussion of Berry et al.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007