Appeal No. 2001-0098 10
Application No. 08/875,424
kappa number decreases by at least one unit as a result of the acid treatment step D.
Finally, little weight should be given to the term “tower” as provided in the claimed
subject matter. It is of little consequence where the treatment occurs and no structure is
provided in the claimed subject matter by stating the place where the reaction occurs.
Furthermore, the use of towers in pulp treatment is considered ordinary and routine.
With respect to each rejection to be entered, the examiner shall state the ground of
rejection and point out where each of the specific limitations recited in the rejected claims
is found in the prior art relied upon in the rejection, shall identify any difference between
the rejected claims and the prior art relied upon, and shall explain how the claimed subject
matter is rendered unpatentable over the prior art. If the rejection is based upon a
combination of references, the examiner shall explain the rationale for making the
combination.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 16 through 19, 21, 22, 24 through 30, 32 through
34, and 36 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO
94/20674 in view of EP ‘491 with or without Marèchal is reversed.
The rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
WO 94/20674 in view of EP ‘491 with or without Marèchal and further in view of
JP 57-21591 and Walsh is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007