Appeal 2006-2137
Application 10/375,748
sludges as indicated, supra. As the Appellant’s invention and Parker are
directed to dewatering a slurry with a press, we find that MacMurray is at
least “reasonably relevant to the particular problem with which the inventor
was involved.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior
art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problems addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within
the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”).
As to separately argued claim 38, we find nothing in MacMurray
which indicates criticality of operating its press in a horizontal manner.
Rather, as can be seen from column 4, lines 12-16, of Parker, pressing a
slurry appears to be accomplished in a vertical orientation to retain 30 to 40
% by weight water content. Thus, notwithstanding the Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary, we concur with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the press taught by
MacMurray in a vertical manner in the dewatering (pressing) step of Parker
to retain the desired water content in a slurry.
Based on the totality of record, including due consideration of the
Appellant’s arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence
weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
V. CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007