Appeal No. 96-1110
Application 08/181,669
examiner acknowledges that Saprokhin discloses vertical channels disposed in the
interior of the anode. The examiner concludes that appellants' circumferential channels
would have been obvious because it appears that the interior channels of Saprokhin and
the claimed circumferential channels are functional equivalents. However, as emphasized
by appellants, Saprokhin provides a specific disclosure that belies the functional
equivalency relied upon the examiner. In the paragraph bridging cols. 2 and 3, Saprokhin
explains why the vertical channels are intentionally situated at the interior of the anode in
order to decrease the thickness of the fluorine layer on the carbon surface, which layer
produces a voltage drop. Accordingly, we agree with appellants that Saprokhin would
have provided no suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosed
anode by placing the vertical channels around the circumference of the anode, as required
by claim 4 on appeal.
On final point remains. The examiner's objection to the specification under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is not a reviewable matter for this board. The appropriate
avenue for appellants to dispute the objection is a petition to the commissioner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's rejections of claims 5 and 6
are affirmed. The examiner's rejection of claim 4 is reversed. Accordingly, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007