Appeal No. 1998-1215
Application No. 08/091,039
affidavits are intended to add to the combination of Nakayama
and Gillican. Insofar as the examiner is asserting that it
would have been obvious, in view of the affidavits, to
transport Nakayama’s paint waste to an incinerator in a tank
and agitate it in that tank, we do not agree. As previously
discussed, Nakayama agitates paint waste with waste oil and
water to form a slurry from which there is no sedimentation of
paint particles. We find nothing in the Morrison or Ewers
affidavits which would teach one of ordinary skill to agitate
the paint waste/waste oil/water mixture of Nakayama to form a
slurry during transportation in the tank trailer of the
affidavits, since the augers are provided to facilitate
unloading of the tank. Nor do we consider that it would have
been obvious to wait until unloading to agitate the paint
waste/waste oil/water mixture of Nakayama to form the slurry,
since most of the benefit of having a slurry would be lost; in
our view, one of ordinary skill would form the slurry of
Nakayama before transporting it to the incinerator, in which
case agitation would not be necessary. McLennan, which
discloses a paint mixer, does not affect this conclusion.
We will, therefore, not sustain rejection (3).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007