Ex Parte LAINE et al - Page 24


               Appeal No. 2001-0065                                                                                                   
               Application 09/048,289                                                                                                 
                       The Canadian patent (which has one inventor in common) discloses bleaching                                     
               pulp by using a plurality of bleaching agents (page 1, lines 3-6).  One method of oxygen                               
               delignification contained therein is two-stage upflow delignification (figure 1; figure 2;                             
               page 3, lines 17-20), which is suggested to improve the kappa number over time (page                                   
               4, lines 21 et seq.).  Further, mixing before the stages is suggested to break big bubbles                             
               into micro bubbles to improve the treatment result (Page 5, lines 10-12).   We note that                               
               mixers in the main line are disclosed at page 6 lines 24-25 which illustrates the mixer 24                             
               between the first and second reaction chambers.                                                                        
                       We therefore disagree with the arguments put forth by the Appellants as regards                                
               claims 5 and 17 and the subject matter of these claims would have been obvious to one                                  
               of skill in the art.  There is a clear teaching to use these specific upflow reactors, in-line                         
               mixing, and mechanical working without refining to improve quality.                                                    
                       However, as regards claims 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 19, we believe that the Examiner                               
               has failed to meet the initial burden of putting forth a prima facie case of obviousness,                              
               as no clear discussion of the individual claims, or even a general discussion of their                                 
               limitations, is found within the record.  See, e.g., In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24                            
               USPQ2d 1443, 1444  (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Examiner has initial burden of presenting prima                                   
               facie case of obviousness).  We therefore reverse this rejection as it applies to claims 6,                            
               7, 8, 11, 12, and 19.                                                                                                  
                   D. Claims 9, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable                                  
                       over Mannbro with or without Ahs, further in view of Prough.                                                   
                   Claims 9 and 15 recite the additional step of chelating between delignifying and                                   
               screening, while claim 10 recites additional washing.  Relying on Prough, the                                          
               Examiner’s Answer states that Prough teaches that the chelating agent can be added to                                  

                                                                 24                                                                   



Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007