Appeal No. 1998-2077
Application 08/553,324
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Backlund in view of Lundgren and Lindberg.
OPINION
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and the
examiner, and agree with the appellants that the rejection over Backlund in view of Lundgren and
Lindberg under § 103(a) is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record
before us, the examiner relies upon a combination of three references to reject the claimed subject
matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
In our discussion below, we rely on the same notation utilized by both the appellants and the
examiner in their discussion of the rejection of record. Accordingly, Q stage = chelating agent stage, P
stage = peroxide bleaching stage, and Z stage = ozone bleaching stage. Based upon the above
designation, we designate the sequence required by the claimed subject matter as being ZQP without
any intervening washing step between Z and Q.
We find that Backlund discloses bleaching pulp in the absence of chlorine. See column 1, lines
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007