Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,644
ISSUE
The issue is whether Patentee has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims. Specifically, the issue(s) is/are:
Has Applicant demonstrated that the Examiner was
incorrect in finding that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that Tate’s acid neutralization
waste treatment process could be employed on waste
having suspended solids?
Has Applicant demonstrated that the Examiner was
incorrect in finding that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that Tate’s acid neutralization
waste treatment process could be employed on ponds
containing solid wastes?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Alexander’s ‘644 Specification
1) Alexander’s specification is directed to a method for protecting
subterranean drinking water sources against the migration of
hazardous metal waste solids. (Spec., p. 1).
2) Alexander’s specification teaches that:
Typically disposal of the waste metal chlorides from a
chloride route titanium dioxide process, for example, has
been accomplished by one or more of four techniques: 1)
neutralization and storage of the resulting neutralized
sludge in a pond; 2) neutralization, followed by filtration
and then landfilling of the filter cake; 3) open ocean
disposal of the non-neutralized waste metal chloride
solutions; or 4) injection of the non-neutralized waste
metal chloride solutions into porous subsurface
formations (safely isolated from subterranean drinking
water sources) via deep well injection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013