Appeal 2006-2860
Application 10/737,502
has indicated that the amendment has not been entered into the present
record. (Answer 5). Thus, since Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's
position regarding proper antecedent basis we summarily affirm the
Examiner's rejection.
Now we consider the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weber in view of Ozama.
Appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for treating organic
waste. The apparatus comprises a variety of components including a tank
which has been divided into an inlet chamber and an outlet chamber. Claim
1 specifies that the inlet chamber comprises a pump that is adjacent to the
bottom of the chamber and comprises an outlet opening that is adjacent to
the top of the inlet chamber. The claim specifies that the pump functions to
circulate liquid contained in the inlet chamber from the bottom of the
chamber toward the top of the inlet chamber, however, the pump outlet is
below the liquid level of the inlet chamber. According to Appellants, the
apparatus is useful for treating a type of waste which maybe discharged from
a business such as a restaurant or manufacturing facility. (Br. 2).
Representative claim 1, as presented in the Brief, appears below:
1. An apparatus for treating organic waste comprising:
a tank having an interior chamber,
a weir disposed in said tank, said weir dividing said tank into an inlet
chamber and an outlet chamber,
said tank having an inlet adapted to receive organic waste, said inlet
open to said first chamber adjacent a top of said inlet chamber,
said tank having an outlet adapted to discharge liquid to a waste
disposal system, said outlet adjacent a top [sic,of] said outlet chamber,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007