Appeal No. 2005-0663
Application No. 09/682,142
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Misquitta 5,639,380 Jun. 17, 1997
"Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies:
Permeable Reactive Barriers," US EPA Document No. 542-R-99-002
(Apr. 1999) (hereinafter "PRB Papers")
"Design Guidance for Application of Permeable Barriers to
Remediate Dissolved Chlorinated Solvents," Proponent: CEMP, US
Army Corps of Engineers Document No. DG 1110-345-117 (Feb. 1997)
(hereinafter "The Corps of Engineers Papers")
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method for
the permeable-reactive barrier (PRB) treatment of contaminated
aqueous medium, such as water. According to appellants, a PRB
method depends upon natural groundwater flow and "a barrier of
reactive materials is placed in the path of a naturally spreading
plume of groundwater contaminants" (page 2 of principal brief,
first paragraph). Appellants explain that "[i]f the PRB is
properly placed with respect to the spreading plume and if the
PRB is properly oriented and designed, the barrier will
effectively intercept the plume and impart a residence treatment
time to adequately treat the plume contaminants before the plume
has passed through the barrier" (id.). The PRB method for
treating contaminated water is in contrast to the "pump-and-
treat" method wherein "contaminated water is extracted from
groundwater, treated above ground and re-injected or discharged
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007