Appeal No. 1998-1215
Application No. 08/091,039
He further cites Morrell as teaching that the Nakayama waste
material should be agitated so that it becomes substantially
homogeneous.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s brief and the examiner’s
answer, we conclude that the involved claims are patentable
over the combination of references applied by the examiner.
In particular, we do not consider that it would have been
obvious, in view of Gillican, to move the waste material of
Nakayama to the incinerator in a tank and to agitate it in the
tank. The purpose of the tank car disclosed by Gillican is to
transport materials which "are very viscous, and may or do
solidify after they have been stored or placed in the cold for
some time" (page 1, lines 4 to 6), such as crude pine gum,
oils, fats, etc. In order to render the material being
transported more fluid when the car is to be unloaded,
Gillican provides heating pipes 21, etc., and an agitator 13
to stir and mix the material simultaneously with the heating
(page 1, lines 68 to 73; page 3, lines 36 to 55). While it
might have been obvious, as a general proposition, to
transport the paint waste of Nakayama from the waste source to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007