Appeal No. 95-1668
Application 07/948,089
does not explain in this argument why the references would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, including
such a material in the blend.
The examiner further argues that “Somerville et al. clearly
teach the claimed method and it also teaches that any otherwise
unusable waste material may be used in its invention. It would
have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute waste animal matter as taught by von Porten for the
hazardous waste material as taught by Somerville et al.” (answer,
page 6). We are not convinced by this argument because, for the
reasons given above regarding why the examiner has not estab-
lished that von Porten discloses a high heating value waste
material, the examiner has not established that von Porten
discloses an “otherwise unusable” high heating value material.
Regarding the claim requirement that the blend include
sewage sludge from a secondary treatment system of a sewage
processing plant, the examiner argues that “if one of ordinary
skill in the art were to seek an ‘otherwise unusable’ waste
material, one would surely consider the use of sewage sludge
from a secondary treatment plant” (answer, page 7). We are
not persuaded by this argument because it is merely unsupported
speculation. The examiner has not explained, and it is not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007