Appeal No. 2006-1611
Application No. 10/669,771
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Nebolsine 4,128,477 Dec. 5, 1978
Maxson 5,156,738 Oct. 20, 1992
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process for
removing BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) and suspended solids
from a high volume wastewater stream. The asserted inventive
aspect of appellants' invention is piping the raw, unsettled
wastewater directly to a deep bed filter without pretreatment in
a facultative zone.
Appealed claims 1-5, 8, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nebolsine. Claims 6,
7, 9-14, and 16-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nebolsine in view of Maxson.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we find that the examiner's
rejections are fully supported by the prior art relied upon and
in accord with current patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth
in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection. There is
no dispute that Nebolsine, like appellants, describes a process
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007