Ex parte ROBIN B. SOMERVILLE, et al. - Page 6

          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                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007