Appeal No. 1996-2350
Application 07/843,833
disclosed bleaching steps disclosed therein, including the
Example 57 sequence that is specifically relied upon for
allegedly teaching the claimed ozone bleaching and oxygen
extraction (answer, pages 3-7). We note that the stated §
103 rejection is founded, at least in part, on the examiner's
opinion that the herein claimed limitation of an ". . .
initial, chlorine free bleaching stage . . ." (claim 1) does
not exclude the use of chlorine dioxide in an initial
bleaching step as disclosed by Tsai '124 (answer, page 7 and
supplemental answer, page 2). Appellant, on the other hand,
is of the opinion that the above-noted claim language does
exclude the use of chlorine dioxide, as taught by Tsai '124,
for use in a first or initial bleaching stage (brief, pages
11-13 and reply brief, pages 1-3).
The initial inquiry into the examiner’s obviousness
analysis is to correctly determine the scope and meaning of
each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
Page 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007