Appeal No. 2005-0440
Application No. 09/994,075
We, like the examiner (answer at 6-7), find the appellants’
argument unconvincing. At best, Table 3 of the present
specification indicates that the use of two, rather than one,
bleaching treatment steps (i.e., pre-treatment with sodium
sulfite followed by treatment with hydrosulfite) provided
slightly higher brightness than a single bleaching treatment
(treatment with hydrosulfite) at a slurry pH of 7.0. As pointed
out by the examiner (answer at 6-7), such a result is entirely
expected. In view of the teachings of the prior art references,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected
that carrying out multiple bleaching steps would provide pulp
with higher brightness than a single bleaching step. (See,
e.g., Eckert at column 1, lines 62-65; Evans at column 1, lines
31-33 and 36-40; Tsukamoto at column 3, lines 25-36 and column
4, lines 7-11.)
Additionally, we also agree with the examiner’s claim
construction (answer at 7) that appealed claim 1 does not limit
when the sulfite is to be added to the slurry. In other words,
appealed claim 1 reads on a process in which the slurry is
subjected to a single bleaching step. While appealed claim 1
recites “inhibiting alkaline darkening,” no evidence
substantiates the appellants’ allegation that the prior art
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007