Appeal No. 2004-2026
Application No. 09/793,652
The appellant argues that Holtinger does not teach or suggest
the temperature and time period defined by the claimed formula
(Figure 1). See the Brief, pages 5-6. However, as indicated
supra, Holtinger teaches employing in its acid treatment stage
certain temperature conditions and time periods which overlap with
those included by the claimed formula, in order to produce a pulp
product having a reduced kappa number and a good pulp strength as
required by claim 16. The acid-treatment step described in
Holtinger plays an important role in Holtinger’s overall pulp
bleaching process responsible for producing a pulp product having
the above characteristics. See Holtinger in its entirety.
Thus, we concur with the examiner that it is well within the
ambit of one of ordinary skill in this art to employ the time and
temperature conditions described in Holtinger, including those
claimed, in Holtinger’s acid-treatment stage. In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As stated by our
reviewing court in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d
1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990):
The law is replete with cases in which the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some
range or other variable within the claims....These cases
have consistently held that in such a situation the
applicant must show that the particular range is
italicize critical, generally by showing that the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007