Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Inasmuch as it is not
proper to reach the §103 issues on an indefinite claim (see, e.g. In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)), we vacate the rejection under §103 specific to claim
14 and impose a new ground of rejection as discussed at the end of this opinion.
We turn now to claim 20, which recites that the digester is a single digester or a
plurality of batch digesters, that there is a coarse screen between the digester and the
brown stock washer, and an oxygen delignified pulp washer between the oxygen
delignification stage and a screening stage or after the screening stage.
The Examiner has pointed to Ahs, figures 2-4 as illustrating coarse screening
after digestion and prior to washing (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 3-4) and further
states it would have been “obvious to wash before each of the screening stages of
[Ahs]” (Id, lines 4-5).
The Appellants state that “No attempt is made in the Final Rejection to point out
where in the references that feature is found, or any reason … why it would be provided
in the references, and the undersigned can find none” (Appeal Brief, page 11, lines 9-
12).
We point the Appellants to the Final Rejection, page 3, lines 4 et seq. for a
discussion on the coarse screening feature and washing before screening; Ahs, figures
2-4; and Mannbro, column 5, lines 33-39. While we agree that it would have been
preferable if the Examiner had more specifically identified the claims or their elements in
the discussion in the final rejection, we disagree with the Appellants’ characterization
that no attempt has been made and in this particular rejection it is readily apparent why
the claim is rejected.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007