Appeal No. 2000-1444 Page 2
Application No. 09/040,245
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to a method for the disposal, recovery and
recycling of pharmaceuticals from human wastes. An understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the
appellant’s Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Green 5,485,637 Jan. 23, 1996
Held et al. (Held) 5,508,004 Apr. 16, 1996
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Green in view of Held.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 14) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
1The examiner has stated the rejection as being on the basis of “Green and Held”
(emphasis added), which could be interpreted as meaning either of the references, taken
alone. However, it is clear that the examiner’s intention was to combine the teachings of
the two references, and it is to the combination of the references to which the appellant
directed his arguments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007