Appeal No. 1997-1869
Application 08/215,462
The examiner rejected the claims under § 103 over Deiringer, Sisson or Hittel in the alternative.
The examiner also entered a rejection under § 103 over Lundquist. In stating the rejection, the
examiner makes findings as to what each reference teaches. With respect to the rejection based on
Deiringer, Sisson or Hittel, the examiner states the following conclusions of obviousness:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the
process for recovering plastic material of the invention of Deiringer et al. or
Sisson, or Hittel et al. for the applicant's purpose. Also, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider that plastic waste articles
may contain any residual materials in liquid and solid phase. It is obvious to
make such a conclusion because any liquid phase as impurities would be
expected in the plastic waste as well as a solid phase such as PVC or glue and
label on Evian water bottles. And, also it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to add any surfactant or detergents, or organic solvent to
facilitate removal and suspension of residual material during the agitation step;
and also, a pH degree of an aqueous base solvent can be obtained in any
desirable level.
Answer, p. 5. With respect to the rejection based on Lundquist the examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the
process of separating a liquid organic waste and a solid waste from
contaminated plastic material for the purpose of being the claimed recycled
process. It is obvious to do so because the reference's process includes the
following steps of: a size reduction into a chip having a size of 3/4 inch x ½ inch;
a centrifugal separation liquid wastes, particularly automotive oils and the like
which have their own value as a reclaimed product; continuous washing with a
detergent; and a separation from the washing process soluble and suspended
waste removed with the waste water and a separation of usable plastic material
and heavy waste such as stones, metals, and the like (see column 3, lines
21-68). These steps are within the scope of the claimed process.
Answer, p. 8.
The examiner, however, has failed to make any findings relating to the differences between the
claimed subject matter and each of the references. This fact finding is a necessary predicate to a
determination of obviousness. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007