Appeal No. 1997-0090
Application No. 08/083,183
their brief at page 9, Peter’s process does not employ
stabilizers in any hydroxide bleaching stage.
With respect to the examiner’s stated rejection of the
appealed claims based on “Admitted Prior Art”, appellants
point out that it is only the bleaching sequences per se set
forth in appealed dependent claims 6 and 9 that are known in
the art. However, the claimed inventive process must be
considered as a whole, i.e., as requiring, inter alia, a final
hydrogen peroxide stage carried out in the presence of at
least one stabilizing agent. As stated above, there is
inadequate factual support in this record for this claimed
feature. Accordingly, the examiner’s stated rejections of the
appealed claims cannot be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007