Appeal No. 1997-1732
Application No. 08/236,895
In addition, the appellants argue that Nelson contains no
teaching or suggestion of the claim 21 step of “supplying a
second solvent to the concentrated waste fluid contained in
the container” or the claim 31 step of “adding a surrogate
solvent to the tank.” As support for this argument, the
appellants point out that Nelson mixes steam with liquid
outside patentee’s solvent recovery vessel (which corresponds
to the here claimed container or tank) in mixing zone 12 (see
Figure 1 of the patent). Although this point may be correct,
it is irrelevant. This is because the steam from mixing zone
12 is added to patentee’s vessel/container/tank by way of
conduit 44 which fully satisfies the supplying and adding
steps of appealed claims 21 and 31 respectively.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that
the reference evidence adduced by the examiner establishes a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent
claims 21, 26 and 31 notwithstanding the appellants’ arguments
to the contrary.
We reach a corresponding conclusion with respect to the
argued dependent claims. Specifically, the appellants argue
that the applied prior art contains no teaching or suggestion
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007