Appeal No. 1997-1371
Application 08/213,290
2. Friend teaches scrubbing the waste stream with an aqueous solution such
as oxidized white liquor or other alkaline mixtures from the pulping and
bleaching processes (col. 3, lines 23-28; and col. 7, line 46, through col. 8,
line 12) to –
1
a. remove ozone and carbon dioxide from the waste stream (col. 4, lines
38-46); and
b. form a scrubbed stream (col. 4, lines 35-37 ).
3. However, Friend does not teach forming the oxygen containing stream for
use in the oxygen delignification stage from at least part of the scrubbed
stream. Instead, the scrubbed stream is recycled into the ozone generator
(col. 1, lines 9-13).
Opinion
The examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Griggs in view of Friend. We reverse.2
As noted above, neither Griggs nor Friend teach the step of forming the oxygen
containing stream for use in the oxygen delignification stage from at least part of the
scrubbed stream. Instead, both references teach recycling the spent ozone/oxygen stream
1 Friend also teaches that the ozone may be thermally or catalytically destroyed (col. 7,
lines 17-28).
2 In view of our reversal of this rejection, we do not find it necessary to discuss the
separate rejection of dependent claim 2 over Griggs, Friend, Suzuki and Barker, especially
since Suzuki and Barker do not overcome the deficiencies of Griggs and Friend.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007