Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
(B) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahs
in view of Mannbro, further in view of Prough.
(C) Claims 5-8, 11-12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahs with or without Mannbro, and further in view of
Canadian Patent 2,132,056 or Admitted Prior Art (Finnish Patent 924,805)
(D) Claims 9, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mannbro with or without Ahs, further in view of Prough.
(E) Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ahs with or without Mannbro, with or without Prough, further in view of
Canadian Patent 2,132,056 or Admitted Prior Art (Finnish Patent 924,805).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
After review of the entire record on appeal, we affirm rejections A, B, and C of
record, except that we vacate rejection A as it applies to claim 14, reverse rejection A
over Ahs alone, and reverse rejection C as it applies to claims 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 19.
We reverse rejections D and E, and impose a new ground of rejection upon claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.
DISCUSSION
The Invention
The Appellants’ invention relates generally to a method of producing chemical
pulp by (in a main fiber line) cooking the cellulosic fiber material to produce brown stock,
washing the brown stock to produce chemical pulp at a consistency of between about 6
– 18%, oxygen delignifying the chemical pulp at a consistency of between about 6 –
18%, screening the pulp to produce an accept fraction and a reject fraction containing
shives. The accept fraction is then further treated, while the reject fraction is directly
transported back to the main fiber line before the delignification stage. The claims of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007