Appeal No. 1996-2350
Application 07/843,833
chlorine free in a manner that would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art as excluding chlorine whether as an5
element, molecule, or part of a compound. Hence, chlorine
dioxide is clearly a bleaching chemical excluded by the claim
language "chlorine free."
In view of this claim construction, we determine
that the applied prior art on this record fails to disclose,
suggest or teach the specific bleaching sequence as recited in
claim 1 on appeal. We note that while the secondary
references relied upon by the examiner are directed to
chlorine free bleaching of pulp, the examiner has not
adequately explained how the collective teachings of these
references would have remedied the deficiency of Tsai '124, as
noted above, and suggested the specific bleaching sequence
claimed herein to one of ordinary skill in the art.
5We observe that the applied and commonly assigned
Phillips patent uses terms such as "non-chlorine" (column 2,
lines 59-66 and column 3, lines 29-32) and "chlorine-free"
(column 4, lines 15 and 16) in a manner that is consistent
with appellant's use of the term "chlorine free" as evidenced
by a comparison of columns 1-4 of Phillips and columns 1 and 2
of appellant's specification.
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007