Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
connection after oxygen delignification has a positive effect on the quality of the pulp
and on the operation and economy of the process” (Exhibit D, page 250, column 1,
lines 17-19). That, simply, does not equate to the claimed subject matter and the
screenroom location has been said, by the inventors, to be a choice of process
economy of the mill.
Thirdly, no data are presented in declaration form and the heat savings
enumerated in the declaration are said to be “typically” from 50 – 100 Adt of steam per
ton of pulp. This provides no context for assessing the weight of the savings. Such
information might be useful if this represented a significant savings, but the total heat
expenditures are not provided in declaration form, and we have no way of assessing
their value.
Thus, we agree with the conclusion of the Examiner that the Pikka declaration
does not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1. Claims 4 and 13
therefore fall with claim 1.
Turning now to claim 18, the Appellants state that the means for directly
transporting a shive containing rejects fraction from a screening stage downstream of a
digester to the fiber line before an oxygen delignification stage is not taught by Ahs and
Mannbro, and is contrary to their combined teachings.
The Appellants are simply incorrect. We direct the Appellants to the disclosure of
Ahs and Mannbro as discussed above, specifically where Ahs provides a secondary
delignification (branch) line where the screen rejects are fed to a secondary reactor to
be further delignified using oxygen in an alkaline environment (column 2, lines 35-40).
After further delignification, the branch line feeds back into the main line at a point
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007