Appeal No. 96-1110
Application 08/181,669
Appellants do not advance a convincing line of reasoning that persuades us that the
Ruehlen electrode is incapable of producing fluorine gas, but simply states that "it is not
obvious from the reference that the anode for electrochemical fluorination is capable of
performing the process of generating fluorine gas." (page 12 of brief).
We will also sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 6 under §103 over the
combined teachings of GB '335 and Ruehlen because we are persuaded that the
collective teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art that electrochemical cells of the type claimed could direct a purge gas, alternatively,
either through the core of the anode or around its exterior in order to remove the products
of the reaction. While appellants urge that the references are not combinable since GB
'335 is used to generate fluorine whereas Ruehlen consumes fluorine, appellants have not
presented a reason why the production of different products mandates a different flow
pattern for the purge gas, i.e., appellants have not explained why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been dissuaded and, therefore, found it unobvious to employ the purge
system of Ruehlen in the electrochemical cell of GB '335.
We now turn to the rejection of claim 4 under § 103 over Saprokhin. Appealed
claim 4 defines the anode as having a "plurality of parallel, substantially vertical
channels disposed around the circumference of said anode." On the other hand, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007