Appeal No. 1998-1215
Application No. 08/091,039
a tank being used to move that material. The Morrell
reference not affect our conclusion because, as noted above,
it concerns the desirability of homogenization, but does not
concern the question of transportation in a tank.
Rejection (2) therefore will not be sustained.
Rejection (3)
The basis of this rejection is somewhat unclear. The
examiner states at page 9 of the answer that:
It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have hauled the hazardous
waste of Nakayama to its point of incineration,
in a tank car as described by either the Ewers
or Morrison affidavit[s], because Nakayama
require[s] the agitation of the waste in a tank
so as to disperse solids therein into a slurry
and because Gillican teaches a mobile tank car
capable of providing agitation of viscous
materials which contain solids, in order to
allow said material to be discharged as a
flowable fluid, and because Ewers and Morrison
both show tank cars specifically adapted for
hauling liquids having a high concentration of
solids.
The examiner seems to be taking the position that, in view of
Gillican, it would have been obvious to transport the waste of
Nakayama to the incinerator in a tank and to agitate it in
that tank. However, as discussed above in connection with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007