Appeal No. 1999-0989 12
Application No. 08/265,267
The Rejection of Claim 10 over Thirumalachar in view of Gabrick and Biron
As stated by the examiner, “Thirumalachar et al[.] discloses flooding soil with water
in order to extract oil therefrom, and subsequently separating oil from the resultant
mixture.” See Answer, page 6. We further find that the presence of a lipophilic solvent is
required by Thirumalachar. See Abstract, column 4, lines 15-32. Gabrick however, the
only reference directed to the composition of the claimed subject matter, is directed to the
separation of oil from water in the absence of soil, and in the absence of a lipophilic
solvent. In addition, the thrust of Thirumalachar is to produce oil from oil bearing soil,
wherein the oil is not a contaminant. We see no reason to combine the references to
Thirumalachar and Gabrick, wherein each is directed to a different process. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10.
The Rejections of Claims 22, 23, 26, and 28
As to the balance of the rejections, each of the claims in this group is directly or
ultimately dependent upon claim 2, which rejection we did not sustain. Furthermore,
none of the additional references relied upon by the examiner in three separate rejections
over one or more of the aforesaid claims, i.e., Nakano, Sugimori, Biron, or Thirumalachar,
eliminates the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 2 over Gabrick in view of Winkler.
Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the above rejections.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007