Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 30, 31 and 39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Beck (an non-consumable metal anode for production of
aluminum with low-temperature fluoride melts) in view of
Weaver, and in view of Berclaz, and further in view of Beck
(U.S. Patent 4,865,701).
Claims 35-37 and 40-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Beck
in view of Steiger and in view of Berclaz.
Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Steiger and view
of Berclaz and further in Beck (U.S. Patent 4,865,701).
On page 5 of the Brief, appellant states that claims
18-34 and 35-43 are claims of different scope from claims
1-17. Upon our review of appellant’s brief and reply
brief, we observe that appellant argues claims 1, 10, 18,
27, and 35 separately. We accordingly considered these
claims in this appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7 and 8)(2003).
OPINION
Beginning on page 18 of brief, appellant argues that
the Beck paper is silent with respect to providing periods
with of reduced electrical current flow. At the top of
page 19 of the brief, appellant argues that the invention
provides that during periods of reduced current flow,
electrolyte and aluminum are kept molted by applications of
heat to the bottom of the cell. Appellant also argues that
the invention requires a plurality of anodes. With regard
to claims 18 and 27, appellant argues that these claims
require removal of heat from the cell by passing an air
sweep from outside the cell over the bottom of the cell and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007