Appeal No. 1998-1215
Application No. 08/091,039
In view of appellant’s disclosure ((iv),supra) that
vertically extending augers have been used to agitate the
hazardous waste in a transport tank, but still left a
considerable residue of solids, and Wallace’s disclosure of
the superiority of his disclosed (horizontal axis) apparatus
in relation to agitators having vertical axes, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an
agitator such as that disclosed by Wallace instead of the
vertically extending augers disclosed by appellant, the
motivation for such modification being the superior results
disclosed by Wallace.
As for claim 29, it would have been obvious to have
agitated the waste material in the tank while the tank was
being moved in view of Wallace’s teaching at col. 1, lines 13
to 15, that the particles should not be allowed to settle out.
The limitation in claim 34, lines 16 and 17, of "burning
the hazardous waste while the waste is in a [sic: the] form of
the substantially homogeneous mixture" would inherently result
from discharging the (agitated) hazardous waste "from the
tank to the kiln burner," as appellant discloses at page 2,
line 11.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007