Appeal No. 2007-0161
Application No. 09/797,287
987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the present case the examiner has
articulated a reasonable rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would have understood the temperature limitation of the claims to be
met. Appellant does not take issue with the specifics of the articulated rationale, they
merely argue that Rentschler does not evidence this temperature range.
Thus, this rejection is affirmed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 5, 12, 13, 34, 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rentschler in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art.
Claims 5 and 34 specify a filtration step to remove additional contaminant. Claims
12 and 36 further indicate that such a filter may be a carbon filter, while claims 13 and 37
indicate that the carbon filter is a tank containing activated carbon. Answer, page 5.
Applicant's admitted prior art statement follows. Specification, pages 1-2.
In a known treatment method, a vehicle, such as a truck, or a trailer, on
which extraction and filtering equipment is mounted, is brought to a site to be
cleaned. Among the equipment are a groundwater holding tank, carbon filter
tanks, and a groundwater extraction device. The groundwater extraction
device is generally a series of connected pipes attached at one end to the
holding tank. The end opposite the holding tank is perforated and is inserted
into the ground.
A vacuum is applied to the pipes to draw contaminated water into the
perforated end, through the pipes and into the holding tank. The groundwater
is then transferred from the holding tank through a series of carbon filter tanks
to remove contaminant thereby cleaning the water to an acceptable standard,
which is normally determined by a government agency. When too much
contaminant accumulates in the carbon filter tank "break through" occurs.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013