Appeal No. 1998-2077
Application 08/553,324
washing step are not present. Thus, only one of the bleach sequences, “(ZQ)P,” set forth by the
examiner (answer, page 5) represents the requirements of claims 1 and 23. Appellants also point to,
inter alia, claims 20, 21 and 22, of which claims 21 and 22 respectively require that “(ZQ)” “is an2 3
initial bleaching stage after oxygen delignification” and that the Z stage “precedes all peroxide bleaching
stages,” the later including, for example, “(ZQ)PZP,” while claim 20 requires that “alkali is added
together with said chelating agent to said pulp.”
Turning now to the prior art applied by the examiner, I find that each of Backlund, Lundgren and
Lindberg is directed to bleaching methods that do not use chlorine or chlorine containing compounds in
the bleaching process. I find that Backlund discloses that, after oxygen-delignification, the pulp is treated
in a Q stage using sulfuric acid, then in a P stage using NaOH, then in a Z stage using sulfuric acid and,
optionally, then with a P stage using NaOH; in sum, the bleaching sequences QPZ and QPZP with each
of the three or four stages separated by a washing step, which step is particularly emphasized after
treatment in the Q stage, and the pH of each of the stages is adjusted as required (e.g., col. 1, lines 7-
41; col. 3, line 36, to col. 6, line 7; col. 6, lines 36-48; col. 8, line 20, to col. 9, line 28; and Example 2).
Backlund describes the prior art (col. 1, line 65, to col. 2, line 68), in similar manner to
I have considered independent claims 1 and 23 as well as claims 20 through 22, the latter three
dependent on claim 1, from the groups set forth by appellants (brief, page 7) as explained by the
examiner pursuant to an interview held with appellants subsequent to the filing of the brief (answer, page
2; see the Interview Summary, November 21, 1997, Paper No. 14). 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
In the amendment of January 21, 1997 (Paper No. 6), appellants submitted claims 22 and 25 (“said
ozone treatment step precedes all peroxide bleaching stages” (emphasis supplied)), taking the position
that these claims find support “at specification page 4, lines 31-32, the language ‘bleaching sequence is
initiated with ozone’ means that the ozone is the initial step” (page 6; emphasis supplied). The
difficulty with appellants’ position is, of course, that any Z stage subsequent to the initial Z stage in the
sequence (ZQ)P which is prior to a second or subsequent P stage, such as in the sequence (ZQ)PZP,
is not the disclosed “initial step” ozone stage or claimed “said ozone stage.” Thus, the examiner should
consider whether claims 22 and 25 satisfy the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement. The claims must, of course, be examined with respect to § 103 even if they are
not supported by the specification as filed as required by § 112, first paragraph, written description
requirement. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1983), aff’d mem., 738
F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir 1984).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007