Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,644
(Br., Claims Appendix, emphasis added).
The Examiner has set forth three prior art rejections:
i. Claim 1-3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Alexander’s own specification
(“admitted prior art”) taken in view of Tate, U.S. Pat.
3,817,859 (“Tate”) and further in view of Oddo, U.S. Pat.
5,613,242 (“Oddo”)
ii. Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over admitted prior art taken in view
of Tate, Oddo and Lipford 5,146,600 (“Lipford”)
iii. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over admitted prior art, Tate, Oddo,
Lipford, and Carter, U.S. Pat. 6,800,260 (“Carter”)
There are two issues in dispute. The prior art Tate reference
describes contacting a waste solution with acid to inhibit the
formation of solid precipitates and then injecting the waste into a
subterranean formation. The Examiner and Alexander however,
dispute whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Tate’s method is applicable to treating existing waste metal solids at a
surface location. (Appeal Br. at 4-5). Additionally, the Examiner and
Alexander dispute whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that such a method could be used to treat solids removed
from a pond. (Id. at 5-6).
We affirm.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013