Appeal No. 2006-1119
Application No. 09/381,631
treats vitrifiable materials only if such materials happen to be
10
present in their municipal or industrial waste.” However
inasmuch as Floyd exemplifies the production of a glassy slag
from vitrifiable waste, i.e., Floyd describes the claimed
process, we find appellants’ argument to be without merit.
Turning to the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims
40, 46, 78, 101-104, 106, 115 and 116 over Floyd, we concur with
the reasoning set forth at pages 5 and 6 of the answer. We note
that, for the most part, appellants’ arguments focus upon the
asserted failure of Floyd to disclose the manufacture of glass.
As for the preheating step of claim 46, we disagree with
appellants that the examiner’s position is based upon unsupported
speculation. Appellants have advanced no factual criticism of
the examiner’s finding that the incineration of organic matter
"
would take place at a temperature well below 900 C. In any
event, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to determine the optimum preheating
temperature based upon the composition of the feed.
As for the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 77
and 105 over Floyd in view of Greve, we find no error in the
10 Page 6 of principal brief, second paragraph.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007