Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
cathodes as required by appellant’s claims. Thus, for this
reason, appellant argues that the invention is patentable
over Weaver. Appellant further argues that Weaver
discloses and requires the use of a hollow anode whereas
and the claimed does not. At the bottom of page 21,
appellant states that the invention does not use a hollow
anode that rotates to produce agitation. Appellant argues
that the claim provide for agitation by generating oxygen
levels when electric current is passed through liner. On
page 22 of the brief, appellant further argues that Weaver
requires the hollow anode for purposes of heating or
cooling the electrolyte. Appellant states that the
invention as claimed the anode does not function in this
way; that is, heat is added or removed through the metallic
cell bottom. Appellant states that thus even if combined
with Beck, appellant’s invention is patentable over Weaver.
Appellant further argues that with regard to claims 18
and 27, Weaver is silent with respect the use of an air
sweep on the bottom of the cell. On pages 22-23 of the
brief, appellant concludes therefore that the combination
of the Beck paper in view of Weaver does not suggest the
claimed invention. Appellant also argues that there is no
suggestion when essential steps of appellant’s invention
are missing in the references.
Beginning on page 23 of the brief, appellant argues
the Berclaz reference. Appellant submits that the Berclaz
reference is concerned with a different cell than that of
appellant. Appellant states that the claimed metallic
liner which is at anodic potential having a bottom to which
is applied heat for purposes of heating the cell during
period of reduced current flow. Appellant states that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007