Ex Parte Beck - Page 17


         Appeal No. 2004-1043                                                       
         Application No. 09/960,907                                                 

              cell allows the temperature of the cell to be controlled              
              and also provides thermal insulation in the form of an air            
              space when heating or cooling is not necessary.                       

              IV. Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as               
              being unpatentable over Beck ("A NON-CONSUMABLE METAL ANODE           
              FOR PRODUCTION OF ALUMINUM WITH LOW-TEMPERATURE FLUORIDE              
              MELTS,” Light Metals 1995, pp. 355-360) in view of                    
              Steiger et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,181,583) and in                       
              view of Berclaz (WO 98153120), as applied above to claims             
              35-37 and 40-43, and further in view of Beck et al. (U.S.             
              Pat. No. 4,865,701). (Although claim 39 depends from claim            
              2, it is treated in this section as though it depended from           
              claim 35, as explained in the Office action mailed December           
              12, 2002.  Since Applicant has not changed the dependency             
              from claim 2, but has referred to as part of the group                
              consisting of claims 35-43 in section VII on page 5 of                
              Applicant's Appeal Brief, the claim has been treated for              
              both possibilities as it has been treated since the first             
              Office action.)                                                       
                   Beck, Steiger et al. and Berclaz describe a method               
              having the limitations recited in claims 35-37 and 40-43 of           
              the instant application, as explained above in section Ill.           
                   The method described by Beck, Steiger et al. and                 
              Berclaz differs from the instant invention because they do            
              not disclose the concentration of the alumina in the                  
              slurry, as recited in claim 38, or the size of the alumina            
              particles, as recited in claim 39.                                    
                   Beck et al. disclose the use of alumina particles in             
              the slurry having a concentration of al umina particles               
              within the range claimed in claim 38 of the instant                   

                                         17                                         



Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007