Appeal 2007-2235
Application 10/138,617
discloses that “[t]he landfill’s aerobic operation is optimized by adjusting air
injection and leachate application rates so that the waste mass temperatures
remain stable preferably between approximately 120 degrees F. and
approximately 140 degrees F. after aerobic conditions have been
reached . . .” (id. at col. 6, ll. 57-62). Hudgins also discloses that “[t]arget
waste mass moisture is roughly 40%-60% by weight following the initial
saturation of the waste mass” (id. at col. 6, ll. 65-67).
In comparison, Appellant discloses that the landfill should be
maintained at “a temperature of from about 70° to about 180° F”
(Specification 12, ¶ 45) and “preferably maintained at moisture levels
between about 20% and about 60% moisture as a weight percentage of wet
waste (id. at 13, ¶ 46). Because Hudgins discloses using water to maintain
the same temperatures and moisture levels disclosed by Appellant as being
optimal in a landfill bioreactor, on the current record it appears that Hudgins
discloses adding water to the landfill at the same rate recited in claim 7.
“[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional
limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed
subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it
possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject
matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied
on.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA
1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229
(CCPA 1971)). Appellant has not shown that the amount of water Hudgins
adds to the landfill bioreactor is different than the amount recited in claim 7.
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013