Appeal No. 96-1110
Application 08/181,669
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process for the electrolytic production
of fluorine gas, as well as an electrode used in the process.
Appealed claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over GB '335. Claims 5 and
6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ruehlen. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over GB '335 in view of Ruehlen. Claim 4 stands
rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saprokhin.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments for patentability.
However we are in full agreement with the examiner that the subject matter defined by
appealed claims 5 and 6 is unpatentable in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 5 and 6. However, we agree with
appellants that the prior art relied upon by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for the subject matter of claim 4. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 4 under § 103 over Saprokhin.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 5 under §§ 102/103 over GB
'335. There is no dispute that GB '335, like appellants, discloses the electrolytic
production of fluorine gas by use of an electrode comprising an anode much like the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007