Appeal No. 1998-2077
Application 08/553,324
sequence, I cannot agree that one of ordinary skill in this art would not have found in the disclosure of
this reference a suggestion of such a sequence for the reasons that I have given above (see above pp.
11-13). Indeed, as I discussed above, it is apparent that the Q and Z stages are used sequentially in the
sequence QZEZP, disclosed in Lindberg as an example of one of “[a] number of modification [that] may
be made of the bleaching sequence according to the invention” (col. 4, lines 4-10), which disclosure
taken with the further disclosure that either of these stages can be the initial stage in the bleaching
sequence for the same purpose of dissolving metals from the pulp, would have reasonably suggested to
one of ordinary skill in this art that the Z stage, as the initial stage, can be sequentially followed by a Q
stage in the bleaching sequence. Thus, the suggestion of the basic claimed sequence (ZQ)P would have
been found by one of ordinary skill in this art, armed with the knowledge in the art as seen from the
combined teachings of the references, in the teachings of Lindberg and not in appellants’ disclosure.
For similar reasons, I must disagree with appellants’ position that “the Examiner’s argument that
it would have been obvious to wait until both metal dissolving stages are complete before washing the
pulp is based on hindsight reasoning gleaned from the present specification and is without support in the
cited references” which is also based on the difference in function between the Z and Q stages in
dissolving metal ions from the pulp (reply brief, page 4). As I discussed above (see above page 14), an
objective of one of ordinary skill in this art is to control wash filtrates and Lindberg discloses such
control in the processing of the wash filtrate after dissolving the metal ions in the pulp. Thus, the
suggestion to avoid a washing step until completion of treating the pulp to dissolve the metals would have
been found by one of ordinary skill in this art, armed with the knowledge in the art as seen from the
combined teachings of the references, in the teachings of Lindberg and not in appellants’ disclosure.
Therefore, the record does not support the inference that the examiner indulged in hindsight by
relying on appellants’ specification to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in either of these
respects. See Dow Chem., supra; Keller, supra; Fortress, supra.
I have considered appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 20 through 23 (brief, pages 15-
18) but remain of the opinion expressed with respect to these claims above.
Turning now to the evidence in the specification relied on by appellants in the brief, appellants
allege that the evidence in specification Example 1 establishes “unexpectedly results” in comparing
“Method 1 . . . [utilizing the] QZP bleaching sequence which is similar to the method disclosed in
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007