Appeal No. 1997-4290
Application No. 08/218,647
I concur with the majority’s disposition of the examiner’s stated § 103
rejections of the appealed claims before us. I share the views of the majority
that, on this record, the examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to modify the relative amounts of peroxide used in
the first and second peroxide treatment stages of Andersson ‘590 with respect to
the bleaching of a chemical pulp based on the disclosure of Lachenal concerning
the bleaching of a mechanical pulp. Moreover, I would add that the examiner has
not clearly established why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
modify the relative amounts of peroxide used in the first and second peroxide
treatment stages of Andersson ‘590 so as to arrive at the claimed invention based
on the test results reported in Table III for Example 3 of Andersson ‘590. In this
regard, it is noted that those results were obtained using between 15-30 kg/ton of
peroxide in the first peroxide treatment stage and 5kg/ton of peroxide in the
second peroxide treatment stage. The examiner’s tradeoff in brightness versus
viscosity theory falls short in establishing why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to use a much lower amount of peroxide (2-8 kilo/ton) in the
first peroxide treatment stage while also employing an amount of peroxide in the
second peroxide treatment stage that is higher than the amount used in the first
peroxide treatment stage as herein claimed. See In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907,
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007