Appeal No. 1999-0678
Application No. 08/462,691
different condition that one could not with confidence
extrapolate from the Canadian patent about what would occur
if one agitated pulp with ozone . . . .
The examiner, however, has not provided any evidence contrary to
the expert opinions in the Reeve and Greenwood declarations. In
fact, the examiner states that Singh, Kimura, and Coste “teach
adding the ozone as the primary bleaching agent [emphasis ours].”
See Answer, page 8. It appears to be the examiner’s position
that Singh, Kimura, and Coste do not teach ozone as the only
bleaching agent in their ozonation bleaching processes.
In view of the foregoing, we cannot agree with the examiner
that the evidence as a whole provides a suggestion sufficient to
arrive at the claimed subject matter within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Hence, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REMAND ORDER
As a final point, we observe that claims 18 through 23, 25
through 30 and 32 through 41 of copending Application 08/463,558
appear to teach and/or suggest claims 18 through 35 of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007