Ex Parte McCrea et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2011

11616398 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JACK L. MCCREA, STEPHEN P. MARKLE and
RANDALL J. JONES
____________

Appeal 2010-008169
Application 11/616,398
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-008169
Application 11/616,398

over Eckert (US 5,463,176 , issued October 31, 1995) in view of Hover (US
3,607,735, issued September 21, 1971). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Representative claim 3 reads as follows:
3. A method for treating waste water comprising:
separating sludge during the wastewater treatment process,
transferring the separated sludge to an ozone oxidation zone,
dissolving ozone into effluent from the ozone oxidation zone,
recirculating ozonated effluent back into the ozone oxidation zone,
transferring a treated sludge from the ozone oxidation zone to a
concentrated sludge extraction zone,
extracting a concentrated sludge from the bottom strata of the
concentrated sludge reduction zone,
extracting a clarified liquor from the middle strata of the concentrated
sludge reduction zone.

Appellants do not set forth separate, substantive arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all of the appealed claims stand or
fall together with claim 3.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
2
Appeal 2010-008169
Application 11/616,398

reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants’ main argument focuses on their assertion that the claimed
method is a disinfection based method versus the cited prior art consumption
based method. (Br. 12-13; see also Br. 10-11). This argument is unavailing.
As correctly explained by the Examiner (Ans. 5-7), the claims do not recite
the distinction urged by Appellants. Thus, the Appellants’ arguments “fail
from the outset because … they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims …,” and are not commensurate with the broader scope of claim 3
which merely recites the treatment of wastewater suggested by the prior art
references relied upon by the Examiner. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the Answer, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Echert in view of Hoover.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED

tc

VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C.
1938 E. OSBORN RD
PHOENIX, AZ 85016-7234
3