Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
located upstream of the main reactor to remix with the main stream (column 2, lines 44
– 49). In Mannbro (column 5, lines 47-55 and column 9, lines 58 – 68) the recycling of
shives prior to the delignification step is disclosed.
Turning now to claims 3 and 14, the Appellants state that the features of those
claims are not suggested by either Ahs or Mannbro.
Claim 3 interposes the step of washing between delignification and screening.
The Examiner states that “It would have been obvious to wash the pulp prior to the
screening stage as such is taught by AHS ET AL (Figures 2-4).” (Examiner’s Answer,
page 4, lines 2-3).
A close examination of figures 2-4 of Ahs reveals the step of washing is added
before a screening step, both upstream (block 2) and downstream (block 11) of the
delignification unit. We therefore agree that the addition of another screening step
would have been obvious as described by Ahs.
Claim 14 also interposes the step of washing between step (b) washing and step
(c) delignification, and also includes the step of returning the washed coarse rejects
prior to step (b) washing. It is our opinion that this claim includes a typographical error
or is otherwise unclear, as it seems to us to make little sense to wash after a wash and
recycle rejects into the wash with no processing (creating in essence an endless cycle,
absent some form of degradation or processing not apparent to us).
Both the Examiner and the Appellants appear to have misread the claim as
screening the pulp between steps (c) and (d) (Appeal brief, page 10, lines 15-17 and
Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 4-6). Our examination of the specification indicates
there is no support for the apparently endless wash cycle of the literal claim; thus, the
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007