Appeal No. 2005-1298
Application No. 09/423,523
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to
reverse the prior art rejections advanced by the Examiner on
this appeal.
I share the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious for one with ordinary skill in this art to use the
permeable films of Flesher for the fibrous mulch/compost sheet
disclosed by Tesch.1
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
the problems associated with composting. Appellants have
admitted in the discussion of the Background of the Invention,
specification page 1, that it was known that to achieve good
quality compost it is necessary to have suitable levels of
temperature, moisture and sufficient oxygen. It was recognized
that the surface of uncovered compost heaps would dry out,
harden and prevent oxygen (air) passage in to the interior of
the heap and prevent or lessen the fermentation process. It was
also recognized that rain on an uncovered compost heap also
reduced the fermentation process in the interior. According to
Appellants, to overcome these difficulties person of ordinary
skill in the art applied polymer sheeting to cover the compost
heaps. The use of the polymer sheet to cover compost heaps
produced problems with oxygen (air) transfer and build up of
water vapor and carbon dioxide thus having a negative effect on
the fermentation process.
1 The Examiner relies on the Flesher, Werenicz, and Warzelhan (WO
96/15174) references as each describing permeable films. I will limit
my discussion to the Flesher reference.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007