Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,644
test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). In the present case,
Tate teaches that iron oxides may precipitate out of a waste stream
and plug the formation. (Tate, col. 2, ll. 60-65). Tate teaches that its
method is applicable to precipitates, such as waste metal iron
hydroxides, and Oddo does not teach or suggest otherwise.
Based upon the record presented, we find that Applicants’
claimed subject matter combines familiar elements of the prior art
according to known methods to yield predictable results, i.e., a
process that injects waste materials into a subterranean well where the
process has a reduced tendency to plug the well. We conclude that
Alexander has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-3 as obvious over the admitted prior art taken in
view of Tate and further in view of Oddo.
ii. The Rejection of Claims 4-6 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art taken in view of
Tate, Oddo and Lipford
Alexander did not argue the separate patentability of any
subgroups of the claims as provided by rule so we select claim 4 as
representative. Alexander claim 4 is directed to a process for
disposing of waste metal hydroxide solids from a process of making
titanium dioxide from titanium-bearing ore. Claim 4 involves
removing waste solids from a pond, contacting the waste solids with
an acid to dissolve at least some of the solids, separating out the
undissolved solids and injecting the remainder into a well.
The Examiner relies upon Tate and Oddo as discussed above,
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013