Appeal No. 1998-1215
Application No. 08/091,039
Rejection (1)
In this rejection, the examiner asserts that the term
"appreciable" in claim 34 (line 9) is indefinite. Appellant
does not contest this rejection, but states on page 28 of the
brief that the rejection is mooted because he is willing to
delete the term from the claims. However, the rejection is
not moot because, as the examiner notes on page 3 of the
answer, no amendment deleting "appreciable" has been filed.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will be summarily sustained.
Rejection (2)
Nakayama discloses a method of disposing of paint waste
in which the waste is mixed with waste oil and water in tank
1, forming a slurry which prevents sedimentation of the paint
waste particles (col. 1, lines 22 to 24; col. 2, lines 37 to
40). The slurry is fed to storage tank 2, and therefrom
continuously to incinerator 3, where it can be completely
burned without pollution (col. 1, lines 37 to 39). The
examiner recognizes that Nakayama does not disclose moving the
waste in a tank with an elongated bottom to the incinerator,
but takes the position that such a modification of the
Nakayama process would have been obvious in view of Gillican.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007