Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
recycling system for a bleaching sequence. See Figure 3. However, there is no
disclosure of the system as a whole containing pulp digestion and a bleaching plant in a
single schematic sequence. Moreover, it is Ahlstrom’s preference that both the hot alkali
extraction stage and the oxygen pre-bleaching step be integrated into the brown stock
washing system, lowering the effluent leading to the recipient. See page 2. In addition,
Ahlstrom states that the bleach plant waste water can probably be taken to the cooking
liquor preparation system. See page 4. Accordingly, we find no teaching or suggestion
that a separate and independent recovery installation be established for the bleach plant
effluent.
Based upon the above considerations, even if the examiner was correct in
combining Henricson, Phillips, and Smith with or without Mannbro, Reeve or Ahlstrom
in the manner described supra, the recovery system and the process created would, in
any event, fall short of the invention defined by the claimed subject matter, as the
aforesaid claimed subject matter requires features that cannot be achieved by combining
the four references. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). Accordingly,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
DECISION
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007