Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
disclosed in Beer for applying the noble metal or noble metal
oxide coating would have been considered alternative obvious
ways to apply the coating to a deactivated anode.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the combined
disclosures of the relied upon references establish a prima
facie case of obviousness for the subject matter defined by
appeal claim 1. Although appellants assert that the anodes
reactivated according to the claimed invention last as long as
new anodes,
we observe that one of the objects of the prior art as
described in de Nora is to produce a recoated, previously used
dimensionally stable electrode which will be equal in
performance to the same electrode as initially coated. See de
Nora at column 2, lines 49 though 51. Accordingly, the
production of an anode reactivated according to the claimed
invention which lasts as long as a new anode is an expected
result in this art. Thus, we conclude as the examiner did,
that the claimed subject matter defined by appealed claim 1
would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since claims 2 through 5, 7, 10, 16 through 18, 20, 21 and 23
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007