Appeal No. 2005-0663
Application No. 09/682,142
(X) claim 16
(XI) claims 23-25 and 29-35;1 and
(XII) claim 62.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Since we fully concur
with the examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the
prior art, as well as her cogent disposition of the arguments
raised by appellants, we will adopt the examiner's reasoning as
our own in sustaining the rejections of record.
There is no dispute that the PRB Papers and The Corps of
Engineers Papers evidence that it was known in the art to employ
the PRB treatment of contaminated water. As recognized by the
examiner, the references fail to teach the presently claimed in-
well transmitting of the signal which senses the effectiveness of
the PRB treatment for wireless communication to a remote
collector or monitor. However, as set forth by the examiner,
Misquitta teaches the use of wireless transmission of in-well
monitoring and sensing of contaminants in underground water.
1 Claims 36-43 have been cancelled.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007