Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
the pulp during the washing stage and prior to the oxygen stage and concludes that it
would have been obvious to add the chelating agent during or after the washing stage
(Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 8-14).
The Appellants state essentially that Prough does not teach effecting chelating
treatment of the pulp between steps c and d (Appeal Brief, page 15, lines 4-6).
We agree with the Appellants. It appears that the Examiner has misapprehended
the steps of claim 1. Step c is delignification, while step d is screening. The rejection
seems to state it would have been obvious to add the chelating agent before the oxygen
treatment stage, whereas claims 9, 10 and 15 call for chelating treatment after the
oxygen treatment stage but before screening.
We therefore reverse this rejection as no prima facie case of obviousness has been
established for claims 9, 10, and 15.
E. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahs
with or without Mannbro, with or without Prough, further in view of Canadian Patent
2,132,056 or Admitted Prior Art.
The Appellants have first challenged the combination of Ahs with Mannbro in the
prima facie case of obviousness. As noted above, this argument is without merit.
The Appellants additionally challenge that nowhere in the prior art is found a
teaching of step d of claim 21(“during the practice of step (c), [oxygen delignification]
subjecting the pulp to mechanical action without refining so as to produce an oxygen-
delignified chemical pulp substantially devoid of shives so that downstream screening of
the oxygen delignified pulp is unnecessary”.
We are unable to discern within the rejection that this feature or alleged
difference has been recognized or addressed by the Examiner. Accordingly, we agree
25
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007