Appeal No. 1997-4285 Page 13
Application No. 08/420,852
d) pumping the supernatant from the reactor/settling
tank through a filter to yield wastewater suitable for
disposal or reuse;
e) pumping the sludge from the reactor/settling tank
to a holding tank where the sludge is thickened; and
f) pumping the sludge from the holding tank to a
solar dewatering unit, wherein the sludge is dewatered to
have a water content of less than 50%, and wherein the
reactor/settling tank, the holding tank and the solar
dewatering unit of the apparatus are arranged to form a
portable unit.
With regard to the independent claims on appeal (i.e.,
claims 1 and 9), the examiner ascertained (final rejection, p.
3) that the claims differ from Pahmeier only by reciting that
the sludge is pumped to a solar dewatering unit and the
components of the apparatus are arranged to form a portable
unit. We do not agree. We agree with the appellants (brief,
p. 6) that Pahmeier lacks the method steps carried out in a
single reactor/settling tank.
Claim 9 requires that steps (a), (b) and (c) be performed
in a reactor/settling tank. While Pahmeier's clarifier 40 is
a tank in which steps (b) and (c) are performed, step (a) is
not performed in Pahmeier's clarifier 40. In that regard,
Pahmeier's oxidizing agent (i.e., hydrogen peroxide) is not
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007