Appeal No. 1996-1914
Application No. 08/159,739
of anticipation or obviousness. Accordingly, we shall reverse
each of the rejections at issue.
For emphasis, we note that the teachings of Northrop are
crucial to each of the extant rejections. Accordingly, we
shall focus our remarks upon the shortcomings of that
reference and, in doing so, note that neither Seidel nor
Bogart remedy the deficiencies of the primary reference.
While we can agree with many of the points articulated by
the examiner, we cannot agree that the formation of humus
within the ecoreactor (constructed wetland) of Northrop would
be considered by those of ordinary skill in the art as being
synonymous with a composting operation. The examiner has
failed to satisfy his burden of presenting credible evidence
to support this allegation.
Even if it were true that humus formation as in Northrop
could be considered a form of composting, the examiner
apparently has failed to appreciate that all of appellants'
independent claims clearly require, in one form or other, that
solids be "removed" from the settling/separation unit, the
bioreactor and the reed bed and "transferred" to the
composting station. Thus, as we read the claims, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007