Appeal No. 2006-1611
Application No. 10/669,771
Our review of appellants' specification finds us in
agreement with the examiner that appellants' argument is without
merit. Appellants' specification fails to provide any
definition of "piping . . . directly" that requires the
exclusion of the fine screening disclosed by Nebolsine. In
particular, the specification states at page 1 that "[m]ore
specifically the invention relates to a process for treatment of
raw, unsettled wastewater by direct filtration through a deep
bed filter without prior treatment in a facultative zone" (lines
11-14). Page 4 of the specification relates "[i]n this
innovative process, both the primary steps of passing the sewage
wastewater through a clarifying or settling tank to remove
solids or through a facultative zone for denitrification are
replaced by the one inventive step of feeding fresh, unsettled
sewage directly into a deep bed filter for aerobic filtration"
(lines 4-8). Accordingly, it is our view that the claimed
piping directly can be reasonably interpreted as excluding
passing the wastewater through a clarifying or settling tank to
remove solids or through a facultative zone for denitrification,
but not as excluding fine screening. The statement at page 6 of
the specification, line 2, that "[f]ine screening is not
required" would be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007