Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
stand or fall together with claim 1, we also necessarily
sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Appealed claim 8 is another matter. As appellants point
out, claim 8 covers a process for reactivating the anode
wherein the reactivating coating is deposited without removing
the anode from the cell in which it is used. We find no
disclosures in any of the relied upon references, nor has the
examiner referred to any disclosure, which would have
suggested the subject matter defined by claim 8. Indeed, as
appellants point out, the Fabian reference teaches that the
electrode members to be recoated must be separated from the
risers in the electrolytic cell to prevent the reheating of
the risers. Thus, we reverse the examiner’s rejections of
appealed claim 8.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-
part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007