Appeal No. 2004-2026
Application No. 09/793,652
claimed formula, such as the one taught by Lachenal, motivated by a
reasonable expectation of decreasing the kappa number of the
resulting pulp product.
The appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
eliminate the intermediate wash stage required by Holtinger. See
the Brief, page 6. However, claim 16, by virtue of using the
transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the
intermediate wash stage (after the acid treatment) taught by
Holtinger. See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795,
802-03 (CC PA 1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the
reaction is propylene, any other monomer may be present, because
the term ‘comprises’ permits the inclusion of other steps,
elements, or materials.”).
Under the circumstances recounted above, we concur with the
examiner that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of a
conclusion of obviousness. Thus, we affirm the decision of the
examiner rejecting all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007