Appeal No. 1996-2758
Application No. 08/103,792
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that only the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 5, 8, 14, 16,
20 through 24, 27 and 33 is well founded. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1
through 5, 8, 14, 16, 20 through 24, 27 and 33, but will not
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 34 and 35.
Our reasons for this determination follow.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a non-aqueous
electrolyte and its use in the electrodeposition of aluminum.
See claims 1 and 20. The electrolyte comprises an aluminum
halide and a quaternary ammonium halide in a non-aqueous
solvent. The claimed molar ratio of a quaternary ammonium
halide to an aluminum halide is not larger than 1:1.
According to pages 9 and 10 of the specification, the
dissolution of a quaternary ammonium halide and an aluminum
halide in a non-aqueous solvent is affected by their molar
ratio. Any non-aqueous solvent for dissolution of both the
quaternary ammonium halide and the aluminum halide ordinarily
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007