Appeal No. 2007-0175 Page 3
Application No. 10/467,134
According to the claim, the method results in eliminating at least 20% of hexane
extractable material from the water or wastewater without subjecting the water or
wastewater to flotation degreasing means.
According to the examiner (Final Rejection1, page 2), Binot disclose “a
method of degreasing wastewater substantially as [set forth in appellant’s
claims].” In this regard, the examiner finds (id., emphasis added), “the
coagulation, flocculation, and sediment devices of Binot . . . would appear to
eliminate hexane extractable material and remove grit from the wastewater as in
the instant method.”
The examiner recognizes, however, that appellant’s claimed invention
differs from Binot “by reciting that the wastewater is not subjected to flotation
degreasing means.” Id. To make up for this deficiency the examiner relies on
Vion. According to the examiner (id.), Vion disclose “that it is known in the art to
remove grease particles from water by flocculation, coalescence, and
sedimentation, with mechanical stirring, and optionally with the injection of air.”
Based on this evidence the examiner reasons that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Binot . . . by excluding
the recited degreasing means in view of the teachings of Vion, to remove the
hexane extractable material from the wastewater by flocculation, coalescence,
arid sedimentation, with mechanical stirring.” Final Rejection, bridging
paragraph, pages 2-3. According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), “[t]he
specific % of hexane extractable material eliminated, would have been an
1 At page 3 of the Answer, the examiner directs attention to the “Final Rejection dated August 34,
2005” for the statement of the rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013