Appeal No. 1996-1240
Application 08/044,961
Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pinckard.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
Pinckard discloses a method wherein plant material having
a 10:1 to 30:1 carbon:nitrogen ratio is composted to produce a
microbially active humic substance which is mixed with
chemically contaminated soil to bioremediate the soil (col. 4,
lines 3-6; claim 1). The organisms in the compost include
Actinomycetes (col. 5, lines 38-40). The soils to which the
compost was applied by Pinckard include soils which contain,
inter alia, sewage sludge (col. 8, lines 63-68).
The examiner argues that Pinckard’s sewage sludge is
equivalent to appellant’s organic substance (answer, page 4).
This argument is not well taken because appellant’s culturing
of the Actinomycetes takes place after the Actinomycetes have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007