Appeal No. 2005-0440
Application No. 09/994,075
The appellants urge that Hovey uses high calcium carbonate
loadings and that, therefore, “[t]he brightening achieved by
Hovey results not from inhibition of the alkaline darkening but
by masking the darkened pulp with the higher loading...”
(Appeal brief at 6.) We first note that appealed claim 1
encompasses any calcium carbonate loading. As to “inhibition of
the alkaline darkening,” Tsukamoto provides the requisite
motivation, suggestion, or teaching to carry out sulfite
treatment for the purpose of improving mechanical strength and
brightness. Inhibition of alkaline darkening would follow from
combining the two prior art references as a necessary incident
to improving mechanical strength and brightness because the
sulfite treatment in Tsukamoto is identical to that recited in
appealed claim 1. In this regard, we point out that the
motivation to combine the prior art references need not be
identical to that of the applicants in order to establish
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Kemps, 97 F.3d
1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Dillon,
919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en
banc).
The appellants argue that Eckert, Evans, and Tsukamoto do
not teach alkaline darkening caused by calcium carbonate.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007