Appeal 2007-4313
Application 10/286,172
Obviousness
The examiner entered three obviousness rejections—
All claims under consideration stand rejected for encompassing
subject matter that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the application was filed in view of admitted prior
art and:
John H. Oesterle & Kenneth D. Hughes, Electrochemical
reclamation of heavy metals from natural materials such as
soil, US 5,656,140 (1997).
Dan Jacobus, Matrix for forming mesh, US 3,833,482 (1974).
Frederick A. Lowenheim, Electroplating 12-13 (1978).
This rejection is AFFIRMED for the reasons given below.
A subset of the claims (1-3, 8, 10, 11, 14-16, 20, and 21) stand
rejected in view of Oesterle, Jacobus, Lowenheim, and additionally a
Lashmore patent. Since we affirm a similar rejection of all claims, we do
not reach this second rejection of a subset of the claims.
Finally, claims 7 and 9 stand rejected in view of Lashmore, Oesterle,
Jacobus, Lowenheim, and an additional Lashmore patent. Murata has not
presented arguments for this rejection, however. Consequently, the rejection
of claims 7 and 9 is AFFIRMED.
ANALYSIS
In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must
be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims
ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013