Appeal No. 2004-2026
Application No. 09/793,652
The examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Holtinger et al. (Holtinger) 0 622 491 A2 Nov. 2, 1994
(Published European Patent Application)
Lachenal et al. (Lachenal), “Optimization of Bleaching Sequences
Using Peroxide as First Stage,” 1982 International Pulp Bleaching
Conference, pp. 145-151.
Claims 16 through 20, 22, 23, 25 and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holtinger with or without
Lachenal.1
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 has led us to conclude that the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection is well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection for essentially those reasons set forth
in the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis and
completeness.
As found by the examiner (Answer, page 3), Holtinger
exemplifies a process for producing a strong pulp of high
brightness and low lignin, including a low kappa number of 2.2 to
1 At page 2 of the Answer, the examiner inadvertently
asserts that claims 16-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Holtinger with or without Lachenal.
Claims 21, 26 and 27 are no longer pending in this application.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007