Appeal No. 1997-3118
Application No. 08/372,083
increases paper strength but, rather, teaches that the
cationic starch increases paper strength and that the alum
prevents the cationic starch from being rendered inactive by
complexing with the anionic materials. Appellants argue that
the amount of AlCl in the NL ‘507 example is equivalent to
3
only 0.2% alum based on pulp (brief, page 8), and the examiner
does not respond to this argument.
Regarding claims 49 and 50, which recite paper made by
the processes recited, respectively, in claims 3 and 27, the
examiner does not explain why the applied prior art would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to add an amount of alum
to Smith’s suspension such that paper is produced which
reasonably appears to be the same or substantially the same as
the paper prepared by these processes.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007