Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
discharging the heated air outside the cell. Appellant
argues the Beck paper cell with respect this aspect of the
claimed invention.
Appellant further argues with regard to claim 27 that
claim 27 requires controlling the temperature of
electrolyte using the controller which increases or
decreases the air sweep to control of the temperature in
the cell. Beginning on page 20 of the brief, appellant
discusses the Weaver reference. Appellant argues that with
regard to claims 1 and 10, these claims are patentable over
the combination of the Beck Paper in view of Weaver.
Appellant argues that Weaver does not employ a metallic
liner but instead employs a double refractory liner denoted
as 6 and 7. Appellant argues that because Weaver does not
employ a metallic liner claims 1 and 10 are patentable over
Weaver. Appellant further argues that claims 1 and 10,
heat is supplied to the metallic bottom during periods of
reduced current flow in order to maintain the electrolyte
and aluminum in a molten condition. Appellant argues that
Weaver heats by burning combustible material with a hollow,
cylindrical anode located on top of the electrolyte.
Appellant argues that this is different from the claimed
invention. (Brief, page 20 and 21).
Appellant further argues that claims 1 and 10 are
patentable of the Beck paper and Weaver because the
invention requires a plurality of non-consumable anodes and
cathodes to disposed in the electrolyte. Appellant argues
that Weaver only discloses a layer of molten aluminum 13 as
the cathode. Appellant states that clearly Weaver is
concerned with a different electrolytic cell employing a
molten cathode and is not concerned with non-consumable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007