Appeal 2007-2097 Application 10/746,644 and further relies upon Lipford as teaching that it was known in the art to remove wastes from ponds and treat them. (Answer, pages 4-5). Alexander does not dispute that waste ponds were known. Alexander however, contends that the removed solid pond wastes of Lipford remain in solid form and presumably are disposed by conventional means, such as landfilling. (Appeal Br. at 5). Alexander further contends that the teachings of Lipford cannot be combined with Tate as the only solids specifically discussed by Lipford do not substantially dissolve in acid. (Appeal Br. at 6). The Examiner has relied upon Lipford as teaching that it is advantageous to remove industrial waste from ponds and Alexander does not dispute this finding. Further, Alexander has not demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand pond wastes to be outside the scope of Tate’s process of treating effluent wastes with acid. Accordingly, Alexander has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Tate’s process of treating wastes for injection into a well is suited for treating pond wastes such that the wastes are removed from the pond and the surface land reclaimed. We affirm the Examiner’s 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. 13Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013