Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
(d) during the practice of step (c), subjecting the pulp to mechanical action without
refining so as to produce an oxygen delignified chemical pulp substantially
devoid of shives so that downstream screening of the oxygen delignified pulp is
unnecessary.
THE REFERENCES
In rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relies on
the following references:
United States Patents
Ahs et al. (Ahs) 4,895,619 Jan. 23, 1990
(filed Jan. 30, 1989)
Mannbro (Mannbro) 4,595,455 Jun. 17, 1986
(filed Sep. 4, 1981)
Prough (Prough) 4,220,498 Sep. 2, 1980
(filed Dec. 14, 1978)
Foreign Patent Documents
Nummenaho et al. (Nummenaho) CA 2,132,056 Mar. 16, 1995
Other Prior Art
Specification, page 14, lines 2-5, referencing Finnish Patent FI 924,805
(Admitted Prior Art)1.
THE REJECTIONS
For clarity, the rejections of record are summarized below:
(A) Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ahs, with or without Mannbro
1 It is noted that the Examiner relied upon the discussion of a “conventional” multiple feeding device
contained in the specification by reference to a Finnish Application without obtaining a copy of the cited
Finnish Application. The Appellants did not provide a copy of the Finnish Application, nor any other
references cited in the application. This is inconsequential as the “admission” based on the substance of
the Finnish Application is not in dispute and it is cumulative to other references. However, we note that
references in general, especially if their disclosures are referenced or relied upon in formulating
rejections, should be provided by Applicants or obtained by the Examiner and if necessary translated.
We have obtained a copy of the reference and placed it in the record for future consideration if it should
be necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007