Appeal No. 2006-1119
Application No. 09/381,631
Like the examiner, we find that Floyd manufactures a slag
that comprises glassy material which meets the requirement of the
presently claimed glass. Floyd expressly states that “[t]he slag
of the bath is a silica-based slag, containing in solution at
least one other oxide such as lime, magnesia, alumina, sodium
oxide, potassium oxide, iron oxide and manganese oxide.” Also, 7
Floyd describes the slag as “a glassy phase which is essentially
non-porous, with the oxides in solution which lowers their
activities.” In addition, we perceive no distinction between8
the “vitrifiable waste” processed in the claimed invention and
the exemplified waste of Floyd which, as pointed out by the
examiner, has a considerable percentage of vitrifiable oxides
(see Table at column 13). We observe that appellants’
specification discloses that vitrifiable materials in accordance
with the present invention may comprise organic matter such as
polymer binders, plastics, etc. 9
Appellants maintain that “the present invention
intentionally treats vitrifiable materials” while Floyd “at best,
7Column 6, lines 3-6.
8Column 6, lines 57-58.
9See page 9 of specification, last paragraph.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007