Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
exhaust fan with Longo, Sr.’s method and apparatus for removing methane
from a landfill (Br. 6-7). Appellants further contend that they are the first to
recognize that the electrical infrastructure to use a conventional hard-wired
fan on a landfill may be lacking and prohibitively expensive to install, such
that the solution they provide, to use a solar-powered fan in a landfill setting,
is nonobvious (Br. 6).
We cannot agree with Appellants’ arguments for the reasons
discussed below.
Longo, Sr. discloses using a blower 28 to provide positive suction to
remove methane from wells 26 in a landfill (Longo, Sr. col. 3, l. 64 to col. 4,
l. 2 and figure 1). Adkins, II discloses a solar-powered exhaust fan that is
“portable and modular in construction,” “inexpensive and easy to fabricate,”
and easy to install (Adkins, II col. 2, ll. 19-23, 27-28).
From these disclosures, Adkins, II provides motivation to substitute
his solar-powered fan for Longo, Sr.’s blower 28 because Adkins, II’s solar-
powered fan is “portable and modular in construction,” “inexpensive and
easy to fabricate,” and easy to install (Adkins, II col. 2, ll. 19-23, 27-28).
Thus, the Examiner has not relied on impermissible hindsight in proposing
the rejection, rather, he has relied on explicit disclosures of the prior art.
Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that they
were the first to recognize the power infrastructure problem with landfills
(i.e., lack of hard-wiring) and provide a solution to the problem (i.e., solar-
powered fans). Adkins, II clearly demonstrates, by his disclosure of solar-
powered exhaust fans, that the art recognized the problem of insufficient
power infrastructure for exhaust fans and provided the solution: solar-
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013