Appeal No. 95-0730
Application 08/068,575
claim language centers on the word “optimized” in the independent
claims. According to the examiner, “it is unclear structurally
how the hazardous treatment means [sic, facility?] is optimized
for treating a different concentration range” (answer, page 4).
With regard to the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1
and 19, the examiner has taken the following position:
Muller et al recognize the use of specifically designed
liquid conduits and valves (ie., a manifold type
system) which permit the treatment tanks to be operated
in series, in parallel, or in series/parallel (See col.
1, lines 54+). Also, the use of a connection port
comprising one or more transport/extraction lines
located at a site to transport/extract fluids was known
in the art, at the time the invention was made, as
evidenced by Katz (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize the connection means or
manifold system as taught by Muller et al in the
Silinski et al hazardous material processing apparatus
in order to enable coupling of various types of
hazardous material treatment tanks in a series mode,
parallel mode, or in a series/parallel mode. Also, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to couple the connection port as taught by Katz to
the Silinski et al hazardous material processing
apparatus in order to cover and allow for the treatment
of a large surface area.
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for further
details of his rejections.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellants’
arguments. As a result, we conclude that the rejections of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007