Appeal No. 96-3796
Application 08/195,397
The claims on appeal are drawn to a reactor apparatus. As disclosed in the specification,
impurities are removed from waste water by microorganisms supported on a substrate of particulate
solids in the reactor tank. Claims 11 and 15 are reproduced in the appendix to the examiner's answer,
and the rest of the appealed claims are set forth in the appendix to appellant's brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Moseley (Moseley '169) 306,169 Oct. 7, 1884
Moseley (Moseley '171) 306,171 Oct. 7, 1884
Hickey et al. (Hickey '144) 4,177,144 Dec. 4, 1979
Hickey et al. (Hickey '033) 4,250,033 Feb. 10, 1981
Weisenbarger et al. (Weisenbarger) 4,543,186 Sep. 24, 1985
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following grounds: 2
(1) Claims 11, 15 and 22 to 27, unpatentable over Hickey '144 in view of Weisenbarger;
(2) Claims 34 and 35, unpatentable over Hickey '144 in view of Weisenbarger, Hickey '033 and
Moseley.3
Rejection (1)
The basis of this rejection is stated on page 3 of the examiner's answer. We will consider this
rejection with regard to independent claims 11, 15 and 22, seriatim.
2An additional rejection of claims 11 to 13, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), was withdrawn in view
of an amendment after final rejection (filed June 5, 1995), in which, inter alia, claim 11 was amended
and claims 12 and 13 were canceled.
3The examiner evidently intended to apply both of the two cited Moseley patents in this
rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007