Appeal No. 1998-3049
Application No. 08/463,558
Further, we observe that Phillip at column 5, lines 29-38
refers to a Tappi article, Canadian Patent 966,604 and U.S. Patent
4,080,869. These patents and article are said to show ozone
bleaching stages for a pulp consistency of 1-40%, which are carried
out at a pH of 2-7.
Finally, Dahllof describes what appears to be the claimed
process. However, as recognized by the examiner, the publication
date of Dahllof is unknown.
Upon return of this application, the examiner is to determine:
1) Whether claim 18 and its dependent claims violate the written
description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph;
2) Whether the subject matter of claim 27 is indefinite and/or is
not further limiting in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second and
fourth paragraphs, respectively;
3) Whether the patentability of the presently claimed subject
matter is affected by the teachings of the Tappi article, Canadian
Patent 966,604 and/or U.S. Patent 4,080,869, with or without
appellants’ admission in the specification and the declarations of
record and any other prior art references; and
4) Whether Dahllof is “prior art” and if it is “prior art”, what
claims are affected by its prior art status.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007