Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
discussed, and the accepts of the second intertiary screening stages are
returned upstream of the oxygen reactor, whereas the rejects are totally
discharged. Thus, it is believed that Mannbro’s teachings are specifically distinct
from the claimed invention in which the coarse fraction of the rejects, including
shives, are returned prior to the oxygen reactor. Thus, Mannbro does not teach
the invention of claim 1, nor any reason why this would be provided, nor any
reason why Ahs et al would be modified in view of Mannbro. (Appeal Brief, page
9, line 16 to page 10, line 6)(Emphasis in Original).
We disagree with this interpretation of Mannbro, and point the Appellants to the
entire disclosure of Column 9, line 39, to Column 10, line 2, which discusses Figure 1.
There the function of the line in Figure 1 leading back to the press is clearly described at
lines 63-69 of Column 9, which we reproduce as follows:
If it is desirable to bleach away such material in the oxy-stock which material
normally would be rejected from the process in the form of screening rejects, this
material can instead, preferably after disintegration, be returned to the brown
stock to be subjected to repeated oxygen delignification.
While disintegration is preferred, it clearly is not required. Thus, Mannbro
discloses the feeding of the rejected shives back into the brown stock, with or without
further processing.
The Appellants also assert that there is an “unexpected” advantageous result in
the present invention – in the elimination of the expense of an additional oxygen reactor
without the elimination of its function (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 25-26). The Examiner
notes in reply that:
The instant process would require several passes to obtain the same shive
reduction taught by AHS. The oxygen delignification reactor of the instant case
would have to be larger than the oxygen delignification reactor of AHS to handle
the additional passes of pulp. Such may not result in economic savings
(Examiner’s Answer, page 8, lines 8-11).
While the decreased operating expense (if any) might be advantageous, we do
not see the purported process economies of the screenroom rejects feeding into the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007