Appeal No. 2005-0663
Application No. 09/682,142
Although appellants emphasize that Misquitta is directed to the
pump-and-treat groundwater recovery system, and not a PRB method,
we are in total agreement with the examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the well-
known technology of wireless communication to transmit signals
generated by monitoring and testing groundwater in either a pump-
and-treat system or a PRB system. Appellants have apprised us of
no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
dissuaded from using wireless communication in a PRB method of
the type described in the PRB Papers and The Corps of Engineers
Papers.
We find no merit in appellants' argument that the Misquitta
reference is non-analogous art to the PRB method disclosed in the
primary references. Like the examiner, we find that Misquitta
passes both aspects of the two-pronged test articulated in In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 199 USPQ 137 (CCPA 1978). We agree with the
examiner that the primary references and Misquitta are directed
to the same field of endeavor, namely, the remediation of
contaminated groundwater. Also, we find that the examiner is on
sound footing in concluding that the primary references and
Misquitta are reasonably pertinent to the problem of transmitting
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007