Appeal No. 1998-0578
Application 08/349,633
The appellant acknowledges that Stanczyk discloses a
system for considering treatment, storage and disposal of
waste material, that Stanczyk provides “cradle-to-grave”
tracking of waste from the time of generation of the waste to
the time of their disposal, and that Stanczyk provides for
tracking of individual containers of hazardous materials
(Brief at page 12).
But that is not sufficient to support an anticipation
rejection
of claims 21, 22 and 38. The examiner has not identified or
discussed any disclosure in Stanczyk which teaches the storing
of data representing “containers storing hazardous materials
that are in-use” as opposed to containers storing hazardous
materials that are classified as waste. The examiner has not
shown that in Stanczyk there is first data which pertain to
containers storing hazardous materials that are in-use, and
separate second data which pertain to containers storing
hazardous waste materials.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 21 as
being anticipated by Stanczyk cannot be sustained. Claims 22
and 38 each depend from claim 21 and thus include all features
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007