Ex Parte Ried

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2010

10432538 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/432,538 05/22/2003 Achim Ried ITEU-PWED102US 1557
23122 7590 09/23/2010
RATNERPRESTIA
P.O. BOX 980
VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482
EXAMINER
SAVAGE, MATTHEW O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1797
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ACHIM RIED
____________

Appeal 2009-013088
Application 10/432,538
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

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 2009-013088
Application 10/432,538

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 12 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
12. A system for treating waste water comprising:
a waste water source operative to supply waste water including
pathogenic germs and at least one difficulty degradable substance and
exhibiting a UV transmission of less than 50 percent in a UV wavelength of
about 254 nm;

an ozone generator with a feed device operatively connected to and
arranged downstream of the waste water source which feeds ozone to the
waste water in a concentration of 5 g/m3 to 10 g/m3 for reducing the
pathogenic germs and the at least one difficulty degradable substance and for
improving the UV transmission of the waste water; and

a UV disinfection device operatively connected to and arranged
downstream from the feed device wherein the UV disinfection device
irradiates the waste water with UV radiation having a wavelength ranging
from 200 nm to 300 nm, and in a dose ranging from 50 J/m2 to 2,000 J/m2
for further treatment of the pathogenic germs in the waste water.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Girardin 6,214,420 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Honda JP 04141296 A May 14, 1992

THE REJECTIONS

1. Claims 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Honda.
2. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Honda in view of Girardin.
Appeal 2009-013088
Application 10/432,538

3

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant's assessment of the Examiner’s position as
set forth on pages 11-15 of the Brief, and on pages 1-2 of the Reply Brief,
and incorporate the position therein as our own. We add the following for
emphasis.
The Examiner has not established that there would have been a
reasonable likelihood of success in treating waste water using the Honda
system which treats tap water. The Examiner merely concludes “such a
modification[s] would have been obvious in order to optimize the system for
treating municipal water supplies that were highly contaminated” without
supportive factual findings or technical reasoning. Ans. 4. The question to
be asked is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417. In the instant case, the Examiner has not explained why it would
have been predictable to treat waste water as claimed, using the system of
Honda.
In view of the above, we reverse each rejection.
REVERSED

cam

RATNERPRESTIA
P O BOX 980
VALLEY FORGE PA 19482