Appeal No. 2001-2554 3
Application No. 08/925,321
Lennart et al. (EP’695) 0,511,695 Nov. 04, 1992
Lachenal et al. (Lachenal) “Optimization of Bleaching Sequences Using Peroxide as First
Stage:” TAPPI, International Pulp Bleaching Conference, p. 145-151, 1982.
Marechal “Acid Extraction of the Alkaline Wood Pulps (Kraft or Soda/AQ) Before or
During Bleaching Reason and Opportunity”, Journal of Wood Chemistry and Technology,
13(2), p 261-281 (1993).
Admitted Prior Art, page 4, lines 13-22 of the instant specification.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3 through 8 and 10 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over EP’695 in view of admitted prior art with or without
Lachenal with or without Marechal.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8, 10
through 26 and 29 through 31 under §103(a) is not well founded. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of these claims. We agree with the examiner that the rejection of
claims 27 and 28 is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm as to these claims.
The Rejection under § 103(a)
The examiner relies upon a combination of two or three references to reject the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007