Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,644
and further relies upon Lipford as teaching that it was known in the art
to remove wastes from ponds and treat them. (Answer, pages 4-5).
Alexander does not dispute that waste ponds were known.
Alexander however, contends that the removed solid pond wastes of
Lipford remain in solid form and presumably are disposed by
conventional means, such as landfilling. (Appeal Br. at 5). Alexander
further contends that the teachings of Lipford cannot be combined
with Tate as the only solids specifically discussed by Lipford do not
substantially dissolve in acid. (Appeal Br. at 6).
The Examiner has relied upon Lipford as teaching that it is
advantageous to remove industrial waste from ponds and Alexander
does not dispute this finding. Further, Alexander has not
demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
pond wastes to be outside the scope of Tate’s process of treating
effluent wastes with acid. Accordingly, Alexander has not shown
error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that Tate’s process of treating wastes for
injection into a well is suited for treating pond wastes such that the
wastes are removed from the pond and the surface land reclaimed.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over admitted prior art taken in view
of Tate, Oddo and Lipford.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013