Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
sufficient amount of chemical is present in the rejects to prevent the formation of “dirt”
(Prough, column 1, lines 19-32) when returning the shives to the main fiber line to
continue oxygen delignification. One of skill in the art is clearly taught to use this
impregnation, and we affirm this rejection. As noted above, we also find the evidence of
record insufficient to overcome this case of obviousness.
C. Claims 5-8, 11-12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahs with or without Manbro, and further in view of Canadian Patent
2,132,056 or Admitted Prior Art (Finnish Patent 924,805)
The Appellants state that the prima facie case of obviousness generally is
defective in that the references do not teach medium consistency oxygen delignification
with mechanical mixing of oxygen into the pulp and then between the first and second
stages treating the reject fraction by mechanical action and that the Final Rejection did
not demonstrate where the features in all of claims 6 through 8, 11, 12, and 19 might be
found in the art. With respect to claim 17 only, the Appellants state that the art does not
teach the particular location of the mixer recited in claim 17. (Appeal Brief, page 14,
lines 1-6).
Turning first to claims 5 and 17, we note that claim 5 requires a first and second
consecutive distinct delignification stages, with mechanical mixing before each stage,
and treating the reject fraction by mechanical action in the main fiber line, while claim 17
requires mechanical action on the shives in the main fiber line.
As noted by the Examiner in the discussion of claims 5 and 17, Canadian Patent
2132056 discloses the two-stage delignification with mixing prior to the reactors. Also,
the Examiner pointed to the mixers of Canadian Patent 2,132,056 as providing
mechanical working.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007