Appeal No. 95-5000 Page 8
Application No. 08/021,883
water that is located above said bottom being at all times
less than about 1:10."
With regard to this difference, the appellant argues
(brief, pp. 12-18) that the applied prior art would not have
suggested this difference. We do not agree. We do not agree
with the appellant's calculations that Bailey's below
ground/above ground volume ratios range from a minimum valve
of just over 1:1 up to 7.2:1. Our reading of Bailey leads us4
to conclude that insufficient information is provided by
Bailey for one skilled in the art to be able to determine the
below ground/above ground volume ratio. While the claims of
Bailey do recite "continuously circulating the bulk of sewage
contained in the basin-downcomer-riser system at any one time
down said downcomer, up said riser, and back down said
downcomer," it is our determination that such recitation does
not justify a conclusion that Bailey's below ground/above
ground volume ratio is at least 1:1. In that regard, we view
the term "bulk" as referring to the amount of sewage that is
4See also page 6, lines 10-18, of the appellant's
specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007