Appeal No. 2001-2443
Application 09/108,541
We disagree with the Examiner regarding the term “extraction stage”. The
Appellants are utilizing the term in the singular to refer to either the initial EO or EOP
stage. We see no inconsistency in referring back to each “stage” individually instead of
in the plural.
We further disagree with the Examiner regarding the inconsistency of the claims
involving the typographical errors. The Appellants filed a set of original claims with this
application on July 1, 1998. They additionally filed a preliminary amendment on July 1,
1998 which amended the original claims. However, when filing the amendment of
August, 1999 (Paper No. 7), at least one typographical error was introduced into the
claim body, but not by amendment of record.
Claim 1, line 10 incorrectly recited EP when the claim, as amended by the
preliminary amendment recited “EOP.”
Claim 11, line 14 appears to have been amended correctly to recite “EO” in Paper
No. 7, page 2, line 19. However, the Appeal Brief incorrectly recites this term as “EO”.
As this rejection is founded on an erroneous factual basis, we shall reverse it.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 11-13, 17, and 18 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 11-13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Maples in view of Carles or Ibister with or without Li.
The Examiner has found that Maples teaches an EO-D-EOP-D bleach sequence
wherein the first stage is an alkaline extraction and delignification stage, the second
stage is a chlorine dioxide bleach stage, the third stage is an extraction stage enhanced
with oxygen and peroxide, and the final stage is a chlorine dioxide bleach stage.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 5-8). The Examiner further notes that Maples
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007