Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
Berclaz does not have a metallic liner held at anode
potential. Appellant states that Berclaz is silent with
respect to passing electric current through the metallic
liner and anodes through to the cathodes. Appellant
further argues that Berclaz describes in metallic cell 31
for the cathode material. Appellant states that Berclaz
discloses that the metal shell holds cathode material and
is held at cathode potential. At the bottom of page 24 of
the brief, appellant further argues that Berclaz differs
from the claimed invention and that Berclaz indicates that
heating and cooling is provided to adjust the temperature
of the cathode. At the top of page 25 of the brief,
appellant states that thus the heat is applied to the
cathode at start-up to pre-heat the cathode or, the cathode
is cooled during operation to perform a protective paste.
Appellant argues in his invention, heat is supplied to the
bottom of the cell (not to the cathode) to keep the
electrolyte molten under reduced current operation or heat
is removed though the bottom to control the temperature of
electrolyte during operation. Appellant argues that in his
invention, heat is added and removed from through the metal
bottom of the cell and this is not disclosed in Berclaz.
Finally, appellant argues that Berclaz is concerned with
the different type of electrolytic cell. (Brief, page 25).
On pages 26-33, appellant sets forth further in view
arguments regarding the rejection over the Beck article and
in view Weaver and further Berclaz (Items e, d, f, and g).
We have carefully reviewed this aspect of the brief.
II. The examiner’s position
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007