Appeal 2006-2404
Application 10/884,619
argues that there is not enough in Wasinger when viewed in light of the
AAPA to support the conclusions reached by the Examiner (id.).
We agree with the Examiner that Wasinger discloses air stripping of
MTBE from groundwater (see Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 39-65). Since the inlet for
the air/ozone treated water of the Wasinger process is near the top of the
column and the remaining gas/air escapes from the top of this column, one
of ordinary skill in this art would have presumed that the air stripping is
counter-current, with air/ozone entering at the bottom of the column, and
that packing material at least partially filled the column (Wasinger, Fig. 1;
and col. 4, ll. 12-17). Appellant also admits that counter-current air
stripping of groundwater contaminated with MTBE was known in the art
(Specification 4-5). However, it is incumbent upon the Examiner, when
combining references, to establish some reasoning, suggestion or motivation
suggesting the desirability of the proposed combination. See In re Jones,
958 F.2d 347, 351, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1941, 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[T]here
must be some logical reason apparent from positive, concrete evidence of
record which justifies a combination of primary and secondary references.”
In re Regel, 526 F.2d 1399, 1403 n.6, 188 U.S.P.Q. 136, 139 n.6 (C.C.P.A.
1975). On this record, we determine that the Examiner has not established
convincing reasoning supporting the proposed combination of references.
The general statement in the AAPA that Jaeger Tri-Packs “became the
standard in the U.S. environmental field where very high removal
efficiencies were often necessary” does not provide the requisite motivation
to employ such packing in the specific process of Wasinger, especially since
Wasinger uses the pressurized tank 17 and air/ozone microbubbling to
remove MTBE from water while employing the air stripper to drive the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007