Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
interior of the cell, until such a time as the power is
again available" (see US ‘340, p. 3, col. 2, lines 61-74).
One skilled in the art would recognize that the method
disclosed by Weaver is not limited to any one structure,
insofar as the structure is capable of performing the same
method. The reference of Weaver is relied upon to teach a
method for operating an electrolytic cell intermittently
and applying heat to maintain the electrolyte in a molten
state. As seen in the Beck paper on page 359, the method
requires the application of heat to melt the electrolyte
(heat-up) and the operation of the cell at a current for a
fixed time (set periods of current flow) (see Beck, p. 359,
col. 2). Therefore, the apparatus of Beck is capable of
performing the method as taught by Weaver.
Regarding claims 18-34, Appellant has argued
structural differences between the cell of the Beck paper
and the Weaver reference in the removal of heat (see
Appellant’s Brief, p. 22).
The Examiner acknowledges that Weaver does not teach
an airsweep passing over the outside bottom of the liner.
However, Weaver does teach the removal of heat using a
cooling fluid to prevent the temperature of the bath from
rising too high (see US ‘340, p. 3, col. 2, lines 52-60).
On page 22 of Appellant’s brief, Appellant states,
"Weaver is silent with respect to an air sweep on the
bottom of the cell, and thus Applicant’s invention as set
forth in claims 1 and 10 or 18 and 27 is patentable over
this combination" (see Appellant’s Brief, p. 22, second
full paragraph). This statement is inaccurate because
claims 1 and 10 do not limit the structure of the cell to
having an air sweep on the bottom of the cell.
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007