Appeal No. 1997-4290
Application No. 08/218,647
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Andersson ‘590, Lachenal and Andersson ‘695. (Answer, page 4).
Claims 28 to 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Andersson ‘590, Lachenal and Lindberg. (Answer, page 4).
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants, we refer to the Examiner's Answer and to Appellants’ Brief and Reply
Brief for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well founded. Our reasons for this
determination follow.
All of the Examiner’s § 103 rejections rely on, either totally or in-part,
Andersson ‘590 and Lachenal. Therefore, we will limit our discussion to
Andersson ‘590 and Lachenal and claim 18 which is the sole independent claim.
Andersson ‘590 is directed to a process for delignification and bleaching of a
chemically digested lignocellulose containing pulp. The process includes a
chelation stage employing a complexing agent such as EDTA. (p. 3, ll. 18 to 21).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007