Ex parte Backlund et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2001

08434331 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2001)

1Two amendments after final under Rule 116 were filed by the appellants. The first received April 10,
1997, was not entered for purposes of appeal. See Advisory action dated May 7, 1997, Paper No. 25. The
second amendment received May 12, 1997, Paper No. 27 was entered by the examiner.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 36
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte AGE BACKLUND,
BENGT NILSSON,
and
LARS STIGSSON
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KIMLIN, OWENS, and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner
refusing to allow claims 1 and 3 through 19, as amended subsequent to the Final
Rejection, which are all the claims pending in this application.1
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
2

THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a process for the production of bleached pulp. The
process requires the presence of two recovery installations. A filtrate containing used
cooking chemicals is contained in the first recovery installation. A filtrate containing used
chlorine-free bleaching chemicals is contained in the second recovery installation.
Additional features of the invention are set forth below in an illustrative claim.
THE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative of appellants’ invention and is reproduced below:
1. A process for producing bleached pulp comprising the steps of:
cooking a cellulosic material under alkaline conditions with a cooking
chemical to produce unbleached pulp;
recovering a filtrate containing a used cooking chemical in a first recovery
installation;
washing said unbleached pulp with acid;
delignifying said unbleached pulp in the presence of oxygen, whereby a
filtrate is produced containing released organic material;
bleaching said unbleached delignified pulp with a chlorine-free bleaching
chemical;
recovering a filtrate containing a used chlorine-free bleaching chemical and
said filtrate containing released organic material in a second recovery installation;
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
3
regenerating at least a portion of said used bleaching chemical; and
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
4
supplying said regenerated bleaching chemical to at least one of said
chlorine- free bleaching step or said oxygen delignification step.
THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references:
Smith et al. (Smith) 3,725,194 Apr. 3, 1973
Reeve et al. (Reeve) 4,039,372 Aug. 2, 1977
Phillips et al. (Phillips) 4,372,812 Feb. 8, 1983
Mannbro 4,595,455 Jun. 17, 1986
Santén et al. (Santén) 4,601,786 Jul. 22, 1986
Henricson 5,340,440 Aug. 23, 1994
Ahlstrom Brochure (Ahlstrom), “New generation kraft pulping and bleaching
technology,” no page numbering (1992).

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3 through 14 and 16 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Henricson in view of Phillips, and Smith with or
without Mannbro, Reeve, or Ahlstrom.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Henricson in view of Phillips, and Smith with or without Mannbro, Reeve or Ahlstrom
and further in view of Santén.
Claims 1, and 3 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
5
subject matter which appellants regard as the invention.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not
well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
“The legal standard for definiteness [under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112] is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of [ordinary] skill in the art of its
scope. [Citations omitted.]” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is to determine whether the claim sets out
and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
The definiteness of the language employed in a claim must be analyzed not in a vacuum,
but in light of the teachings of the particular application. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
It is the examiner’s position that the claimed subject matter directed to the phrase,
“a second recovery installation,” is vague and indefinite. The examiner states that, “[i]t
is not clear what components of a recovery installation are covered by this term.” See
Answer, page 6. We determine, however, that the description in the specification at
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
6
page 3, lines 13 -15, in conjunction with original claim 4 and the attendant description
in
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
7
the specification of the portion of Figure 1, from page 6, line 12 through page 8, line
17 fully describes the “second recovery installation.”
Based on these findings, we conclude that the specification provides a reasonable
standard for understanding the metes and bounds of the phrase, supra when the claim is
read in light of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing,
Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of the examiner.
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker , 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner relies
upon a combination of up to seven references to reject the claimed subject matter and
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The basic premise of the rejection is that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use different recovery
installations, e.g., dissolving tanks and different recovery sections of the recovery boiler,
for each of the different effluents recovered by Henricson. See Answer, page 4. We
disagree. Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
8
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Our construction of the subject matter defined by appellants’ claim 1 is that the
claimed subject matter is directed to two separate and distinct recovery systems. The first
recovery system process is directed to evaporating the filtrate containing the used
cooking chemicals to produce a concentrated filtrate and incinerating it. See Figures 1,
1D and 17-20. The second recovery system process is directed to evaporating the
filtrate containing used bleach chemicals to produce a condensed filtrate which is
thereafter incinerated. See Figures 1, 6D and 11-16. According to the process
disclosed in Figure 1, only residual cooking chemicals remain in the pulp as it moves
from the washing steps 2 and 3 to the oxygen delignification step 7 and the bleaching
step 9.
In contrast, we find that Henricson discloses the recovery of two different fluid
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
9
waste streams from the production of cellulose pulp. See column 1, lines 54-62.
However, both fluid waste streams result from the production of cellulose pulp. Id. The
streams differ from each other only in that the second stream has a greater sulfur content.
Id. The constituents added to the second stream may include waste acid from a chlorine
dioxide plant. See column 2, lines 19-20. The claimed subject matter, however, is
directed to a totally chlorine free process, and the addition of waste from a chlorine
dioxide plant is not within the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The apparatus of Henricson further contains means for combusting the first and
second waste streams separately to produce first and second melts. See column 3, lines
32-33. The means preferably comprises a soda recovery boiler having at least two
different melt sections and a common waste gas discharge. See column 3, lines 39-41.
The soda recovery boiler contains a combustion chamber with partition means for
dividing the combustion chamber into a first and second melt producing volume. See
column 3, lines 54-56. The pulp discharged from the digester may be bleached. See
column 4, lines 33-43. Thereafter the pulp is washed to remove the chemicals from the
pulp, for example by countercurrent washing. Id. The washing agent from the last
washing stage to which the chemicals have been concentrated is thereafter directed to the
same recovery process of the chemicals. See column 4, lines 45-48. Accordingly, we
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
10
determine that there is no suggestion that the filtrate remaining from the bleaching of the
pulp be recovered in a separate and distinct recovery system. At most Henricson
suggests that the waste from the bleaching step be combined with a second split stream
having a second sulfur content greater than the first sulfur content from the production
of cellulose pulp. See column 1, lines 56-59, and column 2, lines 17-21. Based upon
the above findings, we conclude that Henricson necessarily requires a mixture of used
bleach chemicals and used cooking chemicals. Accordingly, no separate and distinct
recovery installation is contemplated or suggested by Henricson.
Furthermore, we do not agree with the examiner’s position that even if Henricson
does not teach treating the effluent in a second recovery installation, then such would
have been obvious as taught by Mannbro, Reeve, or Ahlstrom. See Answer, page 4.
We find that Mannbro contains only a single regeneration system which processes
both the oxy-liquor and the black liquor. See column 3, lines 56-59 wherein it states
that the black liquor is regenerated in 13 and 14. We find that the residue of the oxy-
liquor, i.e., the spent liquor from the oxygen delignification stage 9, column 3, lines 63-
65 is led directly to the hydroxide regeneration plants 13 and 14. See column 5, lines
60-62. As stated by Mannbro, ”[b]rown liquor may replace some [of the] white liquor
and is produced in the causticizing plant 14. The brown liquor is obtained by dissolving
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
11
regenerated soda from the black liquor combustion 13 in oxy-liquor.” See column 6,
lines 7-11. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no suggestion or teaching in
Mannbro of using two separate recovery systems.
We find that Reeve is directed to feeding all the liquid effluent of the bleach plant
directly or indirectly to the pulp mill spent pulping liquor recovery and regeneration
operation. See column 2, lines 8-10. We find that Figure 1 discloses that the bulk of
the caustic extraction filtrate in line 102 is used to dilute the concentrated white liquor
in line 56 to provide the recycled pulping liquor in line 14. See column 6, lines 39-42.
Ultimately however, after digestion, it becomes black liquor 14. Further reference to
Figure 1 discloses that Reeve contains only a single recovery system with an evaporator
26 and a recovery furnace 30. The black liquor in line 22 is subjected to evaporation
in an evaporator 26 before passage to a recovery furnace 30. See column 2, lines 48-
53. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no suggestion or teaching in Reeve of using
two separate recovery systems. We add only that Reeve is directed to a chlorine dioxide
bleach plant, column 4, line 27. Accordingly, it is not seen why the person of ordinary
skill in the art concerned with a total chlorine-free bleaching operation would look to a
process directed to chlorine bleaching.
Finally, Ahlstrom is directed to chlorine-free bleaching and discloses a filtrate
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
12
recycling system for a bleaching sequence. See Figure 3. However, there is no
disclosure of the system as a whole containing pulp digestion and a bleaching plant in a
single schematic sequence. Moreover, it is Ahlstrom’s preference that both the hot alkali
extraction stage and the oxygen pre-bleaching step be integrated into the brown stock
washing system, lowering the effluent leading to the recipient. See page 2. In addition,
Ahlstrom states that the bleach plant waste water can probably be taken to the cooking
liquor preparation system. See page 4. Accordingly, we find no teaching or suggestion
that a separate and independent recovery installation be established for the bleach plant
effluent.
Based upon the above considerations, even if the examiner was correct in
combining Henricson, Phillips, and Smith with or without Mannbro, Reeve or Ahlstrom
in the manner described supra, the recovery system and the process created would, in
any event, fall short of the invention defined by the claimed subject matter, as the
aforesaid claimed subject matter requires features that cannot be achieved by combining
the four references. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). Accordingly,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
DECISION
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
13
The rejection of claims 1, 3 through 14 and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Henricson in view of Phillips, and Smith with or
without Mannbro, Reeve or Ahlstrom is reversed.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Henricson in view of Phillips, and Smith with or without Mannbro, Reeve or Ahlstrom and
further in view of Santén is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, and 3 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellants regard as the invention is reversed.
The rejection of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
14
)
)
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
Administrative Patent Judge
)
PL:hh
Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
15
FARKAS & MANELLI, P.L.L.C.
1233 20TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2396