Appeal 2007-2235
Application 10/138,617
possessed a process having the steps of measuring the landfill’s oxygen
consumption and adding water based on the amount of oxygen consumption
measured. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-10, 20,
and 21, based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, 18-22, and 24
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, 18-22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Hudgins, Kneer, and Apel (Answer 5-7).
The Examiner cites Hudgins as disclosing “a method of treating a
landfill of waste mass material so as to biodegrade material in the mass
through aerobic biodegradation. Air is injected through pipes . . . and the
landfill serves as a large bioreactor” (id. at 5). The Examiner concedes that
claim 1 differs from Hudgins “by reciting that contaminated gases including
nitrogen oxides are permeated through the mass such that microorganisms
present in the landfill biodegrade the gaseous pollutants to substantially
reduce the nitrogen oxides to N2” (id.).
The Examiner cites Kneer as disclosing that “it is known in the art to
employ a mass of organic waste that is subjected to biodegradation as a
biofilter for an exhaust gas” (id.). The Examiner cites Apel as disclosing “a
method for removing biodegradable gaseous pollutants from contaminated
gases that includes permeating the contaminated gases into a mass of waste
material wherein the waste mass is maintained such that microorganisms
present in the waste mass biodegrade the gaseous pollutants such that
nitrogen oxides are substantially reduced to N2” (id. at 5-6). The Examiner
concludes that one of ordinary skill viewing the combined teachings of the
references would have considered it obvious “to employ the landfill
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013