Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,644
of certain otherwise solids-free waste streams. (Reply Br. at 2). In
particular, Alexander identifies Tate as teaching that surface solids
should be treated via more effective surface treatments. (Id.).
Alexander concludes that dealing with surface solids is distinct from
treating solids formed from otherwise solids-free wastes. (Id.).
Disclosures in the prior art must be evaluated for all that they
fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. Tate teaches the benefits
of injecting wastes into subterranean formations but states that
undissolved particles can plug the formation. Tate teaches one of
ordinary skill in the art that its method dissolves precipitates that have
already formed in a waste stream and that the process inhibits the
formation of further precipitates thereby reducing the likelihood of
plugging the formation. While Tate recognizes that other
conventional methods may be employed for suspended solids, such as
clay from river water, Tate does not teach that its method is
ineffective as applied to suspended solids.
Alexander contends that Oddo does not disclose or suggest the
aspect of acidifying existing waste solids including waste metal
hydroxides, such as those formed by neutralizing waste metal
chlorides. (Appeal Br., p. 5). Obviousness however, is not limited to
the express teachings of a single prior art reference but is based upon
what the combined teachings of the prior art suggest to the person of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of
the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013