Appeal No. 2006-0461
Application 10/457,198
We agree with the examiner that claimed method steps a) and b) are satisfied by the
apparatus operated according to the method disclosed by Plasser since screened ballast 4 can be
washed by water from nozzles 18 in the screening box 9 at the same time that the detritus
separated from encrusted ballast 3 is removed by conveyor 12 (page 2, ll. 110-128, and page 3,
ll. 1-11, 30-32, and 99-104; Figs. 1 and 2). This is because the water striking encrusted ballast 3
falling into the screening box 9 can further wash screened ballast 4 (page 2, ll. 110-123; Figs. 1).
However, as appellants point out, while Plasser separates dirty wash water collected in
collecting arrangements 21,22 into a clarified clean water portion and washing water “sand”
sludge using a water-cleaning device (page 3, ll. 80-90; Figs. 1) as required by claimed step c),
there is no teaching in Plasser which would have led one of ordinary skill in this art to dispose of
the washing water “sand” sludge by moving it to conveyor 12 for common removal with the
separated detritus already on that conveyor as required by claimed step d).
We do not find any teaching in Bleeker which would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the apparatus operated according to the method disclosed by Plasser to move the
washing water “sand” sludge to conveyor 12 for common removal with the separated detritus as
required by claimed step d). Bleeker would have disclosed to this person an apparatus operated
according to a method which separates water containing suspended sludge into a clarified water
portion and a water sludge portion, wherein the water sludge portion is moved by discharge
conveyor 34 into container 35 (cols. 3-4; FIG. 2). Thus, as appellants contend, at best, one of
ordinary skill in this art would have been led by the combined teachings of Plasser and Bleeker
to use the apparatus and method illustrated by Bleeker FIG. 2 as a water cleaning device to
separate the dirty wash water collected in collecting arrangements 21,22 into a clarified clean
water portion and washing water “sand” sludge as disclosed by Plasser.
Thus, the combined references taken as a whole would not have resulted in the claimed
method encompassed by appealed claim 1 as we interpreted this claim above, see Uniroyal, Inc.
v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1050-54, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438-41 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and
accordingly, in the absence of an established prima facie case of obviousness, we reverse the
ground of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007