Appeal No. 96-1110
Application 08/181,669
one claimed. However, it is appellants' contention that GB '335 delivers the purge gas to
the outside of the anode, whereas "delivery means of the present invention facilitates
purging from the interior of the anode to the outside surface of the anode." (page 10 of
brief). According to appellants, the gas flow in the cited reference is opposite to that of the
present invention.
We find appellants' argument nonpersuasive since, like the examiner, we find it to
be non-germane to the subject matter defined by appealed claim 5. Claim 5 recites "a
means for purging fluorine generated at said anode and dispersed in said porous anode
with metered, downward flowing gas that is inert to said fluorine." As explained by the
examiner, the claim does not require the argued flow of the purge gas from the interior of
the anode to its outside surface. Claim 5 only requires that fluorine which is dispersed in
the porous anode is purged by a downward flowing gas that is inert to the fluorine. We
agree with the examiner that it would appear that the purge gas of GB '335, entering at 17,
would function to purge the fluorine gas dispersed in the porous anode. Appellants have
not advanced any evidence or arguments that such is not a reasonable interpretation of the
reference process.
We next consider the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 under §§ 102/103 over
Ruehlen. Claim 6 further requires that the purging means comprises a conduit
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007