Appeal 2007-2235
Application 10/138,617
We therefore agree with the Examiner that the cited references would have
suggested the method of claim 7.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Claims 19,
20, 21, and 24 fall with claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant separately argues claim 18 (Br. 15). Claim 18 recites that
the “landfill comprises at least 40 hours detention time for said contaminated
gases.” To meet this limitation the Examiner states that one of ordinary skill
would have considered it obvious to optimize the “retention time of the
contaminated gases as they pass through the landfill bioreactor based merely
on the size of the landfill, volume of gas to be treated and/or the amount of
contamination within the gas stream to be treated while minimizing the
release of contaminated gases to the external environment” (Answer 7).
Appellant argues that, “[a]t pages 10-11, paragraph 40, the
specification discloses that a 10-acre landfill 60 feet deep could make
available 40 hours detention time for the exhaust gas from a 1-Megawatt
electric engine” (Reply Br. 7). In contrast, Appellant argues, the Examiner
has not stated where any of the references discloses anything about detention
time, nor do the references provide “any disclosure of the importance of a
long detention time to biodegrade gaseous pollutants, nor any disclosure that
a landfill could be used to provide long detention times, nor any disclosure
or suggestion of the figure of at least 40 hours detention time as is recited in
claim 18” (id at 7-8.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. It is well settled that
determining the optimal value of a result-affecting variable is normally
obvious, unless the claimed process condition produces an unexpected
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013