Appeal 2007-2235
Application 10/138,617
Claims 2, 5, 14, and 22 were not argued separately from claim 1 (see
Br. 5). Claims 2, 5, 14, and 22 therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant separately argues the patentability of claim 7 over Hudgins,
Kneer, and Apel (Br. 14-15). Claim 7 recites permeating gases
contaminated with biodegradable pollutants into a landfill of at least 1000
tons, measuring the oxygen consumption of the landfill, providing 50 to 120
ml of water for each gram atomic weight of oxygen consumed by the
landfill, and maintaining the landfill such that the microorganisms in the
landfill substantially reduce the gaseous contaminants.
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner states that Hudgins “discloses that
optimal moisture and temperatures are maintained within the bioreactor
device[,] that air and leachate are supplied in a controlled manner to achieve
optimum moisture content and temperatures[,] and that a plurality of
measurements including off-gas concentration and temperature are vital for
optimizing performance of the system” (Answer 7, citations omitted). The
Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered it obvious “to measure parameters such as oxygen consumption
and temperature and control process conditions such as liquid amendment
feed to the bioreactor so as to optimize the reaction conditions within the
bioreactor so as to efficiently biodegrade the pollutants in the gas stream”
(id.).
Appellant argues that “none of the references discloses or suggests
measuring oxygen consumption in a landfill and providing an aqueous
amendment to said landfill at a volume of from 50 to 120 ml water per gram
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013