Ex parte TSAI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 1997

07843834 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 1997)

- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TED Y. TSAI
______________
Appeal No. 95-0578
Application 07/843,8341
_______________
HEARD: September 18, 1997
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent
Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134 from the decision of
the examiner finally rejecting claims 1 through 5.
The claimed method is an improvement in the delignification
of digested chemical cellulosic pulps wherein following
digestion, the pulp is washed with water which is essentially
free of dioxins or dioxin precursors in the amount of between
about 2 and about 4 tons per ton of pulp to establish a
consistency of the pulp at between about 15% and about 40%, and
then subjected to the initial chlorination step which utilizes
gaseous chlorine dioxide, gaseous chlorine or a mixture thereof.
The references relied on by the examiner are:

1 Application for patent filed February 28, 1992.
Appeal No. 95-0578
Application 07/843,834
- 2 -
Tsai 4,959,124 Sep. 25, 1990
Ronnie G. Hise & Harold L. Hintz, “The Effect of Brownstock
Washing On the Formation of Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans During
Bleaching,” Tappi Journal, January 1990, 185-90.
J. K. Perkins, “Pulp & Paper Technology: Gas Phase Bleaching,”
CEP, June 1976, 51-4.
Appellant has relied on the following references of record
in his brief:
Andersson 4,595,456 Jun. 17, 1986
“Swedes Investigate Dioxin,” Paper Technology, December/January
1989, 36.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 on appeal under 35
U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Hise
for the reasons set forth in the Office action of June 24, 1992.
The examiner has rejected claims 3 through 5 on appeal under 35
U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Hise
as applied to appealed claim 1 further in view of Tsai for the
reasons set forth in the Office action of June 24, 1992. We
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by
the examiner and appellant, we refer to the examiner’s answer and
to appellant’s brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal,
including the examiner’s evidence of and argument for obviousness
and appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness, and based thereon find ourselves in agreement
with appellant that the examiner has failed to carry his burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness over the
applied references. It is well settled that the examiner may
satisfy this burden by showing some objective teachings or
suggestions in the prior art taken as a whole or that knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
have led that person to combine the relevant teachings of the
Appeal No. 95-0578
Application 07/843,834
- 3 -
references in the proposed manner to arrive at the claimed
invention without recourse to the teachings in appellant’s
disclosure. See generally In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074-1076,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Dow Chemical,
837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531-32 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
On the record before us we find no direction to use wash
water which is essentially free of dioxins or dioxin precursors
in the amount of between about 2 and about 4 tons per ton of pulp
to establish a consistency of the pulp at between about 15% and
about 40% as specified in appealed claim 1 except for the
disclosure in appellant’s specification.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Appeal No. 95-0578
Application 07/843,834
- 4 -
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Luedeka, Neely & Graham, P.C.
P.O. Box 1871
Knoxville, TN 37901