Appeal No. 1998-2337
Application 08/651,442
The appealed claims as represented by claim 11 are drawn to an apparatus comprising at least
an electrolysis unit comprising at least a cathode, an anode and a pH sensitive reference electrode, and
a potentiostatic unit for maintaining said cathode at a constant potential versus said reference electrode
whereby adjustments for pH variations are automatically performed, wherein the apparatus can be used
for electrolytic desilvering of a photographic processing solution. Appealed claim 4 specifies that the
“pH sensitive reference electrode is a glass electrode.”
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Stricker 2,850,448 Sep. 2, 1958
Riseman et al. (Riseman) 3,306,837 Feb. 28, 1967
Freeman 4,255,242 Mar. 10, 1981
Biles et al. (Biles) 4,362,608 Dec. 7, 1982
Blake et al. (Blake) 4,406,753 Sep. 27, 1983
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement requirement (answer, page 7);2
claims 1, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Biles (id., page 4);
claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biles alone or in view of Freeman
(id., pages 4-5);
claim 4 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Biles in view of Riseman (id., page 5);
claim 6 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Biles in view of Stricker (id., pages 5-6);
claims 1, 3 through 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blake in view of
Riseman and Biles (id., pages 6-7); and
1 Appellants, in their brief (page 5), reply brief (3) and supplemental reply brief (pages 2-3) have taken
the position that, regardless of the grounds of rejection based on prior art, the appealed claims “will be
argued as two groups” wherein claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are argued separately from claim 4 (brief,
page 5), and present arguments essentially with respect to claims 1 and 4, although other grounds which
do not involve either of these claims are also addressed. The examiner so addresses appellants’
arguments in the answer (pages 3 and 9) and the supplemental answer (pages 2-3). Thus, we decide
this appeal on appealed claims 1 and 4, although we have not overlooked appellants’ argument as to
references applied in other grounds of rejection that do not specifically involve these two claims. 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995). We note, however, that all of the grounds of rejection based on prior art
would apply to claim 1, the broadest claim on appeal on which all other appealed claims directly or
ultimately depend.
2 The examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6, 8 and 9 on this ground (answer, page
3).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007