Appeal No. 2005-0440
Application No. 09/994,075
(Appeal brief at 7-8 and 14.) This argument is unpersuasive,
because our obviousness analysis is based on what the collective
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208
USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981)(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections
are based on combinations of references.”).
The appellants contend that Tsukamoto is not concerned with
pulp suspensions but rather wet wood pulp mass having a higher
solids content. (Appeal brief at 14.) We note, however, that
Tsukamoto teaches that the sulfonating agent may be mixed with
the pulp before dewatering. (Column 3, lines 40-52.)
The remaining references (namely Nye, EP ’687, and the
admitted prior art) are applied against appealed claims 9 and
12. Because the appellants’ arguments against these claims are
the same as that against appealed claim 1, we determine that the
teachings of these references would be cumulative to WO ’308,
Eckert, Evans, Hovey, and Tsukamoto.
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of:
(i) claims 1 through 7, 10, and 20 through 25 as unpatentable
over WO ’308 in view of Eckert or Evans; (ii) claim 8 as
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007