Appeal No. 2006-1119
Application No. 09/381,631
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we find that the examiner’s
rejections are factually supported by the prior art relied upon
and in accordance with current patent jurisprudence.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections for
the reasons set forth in the answer, which we incorporate herein,
and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the examiner’s Section 102 rejection over
Floyd. Appellants do not dispute that Floyd, like appellants,
discloses a process for melting waste material that contains
vitrifiable materials by injecting a combustible mixture
comprising at least one fuel and at least one oxidizer gas below
the level of the mass of waste material. It is appellants’
principal contention that Floyd does not manufacture glass as the
term would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Although appellants acknowledge that the slag product of Floyd
comprises a glassy phase and the slag of Floyd “is disclosed as1
a ‘glassy’ byproduct,” it is appellants’ contention that Floyd2
1See page 5 of principal brief, second paragraph,
penultimate sentence.
2Page 6 of principal brief, second paragraph.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007