Appeal No. 2007-0161
Application No. 09/797,287
contaminant carrying air is caused to flow for conversion of the contaminant molecules into
carbon dioxide and water." Id.
Appellant acknowledges that Rentschler teaches heating air but argues that
Rentschler does not teach heating the groundwater. Brief, page 10.
The examiner responds, arguing that the heating of the stripping air in the apparatus
of Rentschler is a form of indirect heating of the groundwater. Answer, page 8. Thus,
contrary to appellant's contention, Rentschler teaches step (d) as claimed, heating the
extracted groundwater to a temperature at which at least a portion of the contaminant
vaporizes and separates from the extracted groundwater, thereby forming cleaned water.
We agree with the examiner that although the heating may be indirect, the groundwater is
heated, meeting the limitations of the claim.
With respect to claim 22, appellant further argues that Rentschler fails to “teach a
step of applying a vacuum to the tank to create a pressure at which the contaminant
vaporizes and separates from the groundwater.” Brief, page 11.
Rentschler discloses the application of a vacuum to a tank or reservoir and a final
result of removal of groundwater contaminants. Appellant has provided no evidence to
show that the vacuum of Rentschler does not create a pressure at which the contaminant
vaporizes and separates from the groundwater.
In view of the above, the rejection of the claims for anticipation over Rentschler is
affirmed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013