Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
On page 21, Appellant states that Weaver uses a
rotating anode to produce agitation in the bath, and
Applicant's invention does not use a hollow anode that
rotates to produce agitation. Claims 1-43 of the instant
invention requires oxygen bubbles to be generated at the
anodes and electrolyte to be stirred by the bubbles.
The Beck paper discloses, "The electrode height is the
most important factor in determining the bath circulation
rate by oxygen bubbles evolved at the anode (see Beck
paper, p. 358, beginning at second to last line in col. 1).
Since Weaver teaches the use of an indestructible anode
(see US ‘340, p.1, col. 1, line 4) as well as the
performance of the same reaction using the same electrolyte
as Beck, oxygen bubbles would also be generated in the
method of Weaver. Oxygen bubbles have a lower density than
cryolite or aluminum, and would naturally rise to the
surface, thus stirring the electrolyte. Therefore, in both
references, oxygen bubbles provide agitation to the
electrolyte.
iii. Suggestion to combine the Beck and Weaver
references (XII.B, pages 22-23)
Appellant states that there is no suggestion to modify
or combine the Beck or Weaver references because "essential
steps of Applicant's invention are missing in the
references (see Appellants Brief, p. 22, beginning in the
last paragraph).
Regarding the use of a plurality of anodes and a
plurality of cathodes recited in claims 1-43, the Beck
paper itself provides motivation for their use by stating,
"Operation with multiple, vertical, monopolar, metal anodes
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007