Appeal No. 2007-0161
Application No. 09/797,287
Break through means that the quantity of contaminant in the water exiting the
carbon filter tanks is above the acceptable threshold. At that point the system
is shut down and one or more of the carbon filter tanks is replaced with a new
tank, wherein each tank costs about $500. The cost of new tanks and the lost
operational time to change the tanks adds to the cost of cleaning the
groundwater.
The examiner concludes that (Answer, page 5)
[o]ne skilled in the art would have readily appreciated the use of these
known filters as a precautionary step and/or polishing filter to address any
residual contaminants that may pass the other purification measures.
Additionally it would have been obvious to employ a vacuum extraction
technique to extract liquid from the ground, with vacuum being a known
technique for accomplishing this, as taught by applicant [in the specification,
page 1, paragraph 3.]
Appellant does not specifically respond to this rejection but relies on their indicated
failings of Rentschler to overcome this rejection. Brief, page 12. In view of our findings
regarding the disclosure of Rentschler, herein, 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 O'Brien.
The examiner relies on O'Brien for the disclosure of the use of activated carbon to
treat effluent water that has passed through a stripper, in order to reduce volatiles to
nondetectable levels. Column 1, lines 20-45.
Based on this evidence, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
incorporate activated carbon into the system of Rentschler in order to reduce volatiles to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013