Ex Parte LAINE et al - Page 14


               Appeal No. 2001-0065                                                                                                   
               Application 09/048,289                                                                                                 
                       We disagree with this interpretation of the claims.   Both claims 1 and 18 clearly                             
               recite “directly transporting” and the specification, page 6, lines 19-24 notes:                                       
                       The term “directly transporting” as used in the present specification and claims                               
                       with respect to conveyance of pulp from after an in-line screening stage to before                             
                       an in-line oxygen delignification stage means that the pulp is substantially only                              
                       conveyed from one place to the other, e.g. by pumping or pressure differential,                                
                       without refining or accessory oxygen delignification.                                                          
                       This language is clear.  Substantially only conveyed from one place to the other                               
               is the meaning to be given to the term “directly transported”, and as an example, is                                   
               illustrated pumping or pressure differential transport without refining or accessory                                   
               delignification.  As a consequence, other major processing steps beyond conveying are                                  
               excluded, although conceivably minor carryover, e.g. a continuation of delignification,                                
               could occur.   Had the Appellants desired more leeway in processing during the                                         
               transport process, they should have chosen language other than “directly transporting.”                                
                       In Exhibit A, the Appellants have not made clear the function of elements M800,                                
               M400, or the structure between M400 and M800.  Given that they are said to be                                          
               additional screening (Pikka declaration, paragraph 2, line 4) and there is evidently                                   
               another processing stage between the screening steps, the Examiner correctly                                           
               determined that the process diagram does not correspond to the claimed subject                                         
               matter.  In Exhibit B, the function of the devices between lines 22 and 23 is unclear, and                             
               the diagram is incomplete.  We are additionally unable to see a return line from the                                   
               rejects to the digester, despite the declaration saying this is so.                                                    
                       In any event, it seems clear that neither Exhibit A nor Exhibit B comport with the                             
               claim restrictions “substantially only conveyed” and as such this evidence lacks a nexus                               
               to the claimed invention.                                                                                              


                                                                 14                                                                   



Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007