Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
during periods of reduced current flow (see Appellant’s
Brief, p. 28, first full paragraph). Appellant further
states that "teaching or suggestion” and the “reasonable
expectation for success” must be found in the prior art.
First, Examiner acknowledges that Beck does not teach
all of the limitations of the instant claims. However, as
explained above, Weaver and Berclaz teach the limitations
that Beck is silent towards, and provide teachings and
suggestions to combine the limitations in the method of
Beck. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made would have been motivated to
use the teachings of Weaver and Berclaz in the method of
Beck because Weaver and Berclaz suggest reasons to use the
modifications.
G. No suggestion to make the combination (XII.G, page
29-37)
i. Application of heat to the bottom of the cell
(XII.G, page 29)
Appellant states, “The Beck Paper and Weaver make no
mention of applying heat to the metal bottom of the cell
during periods of reduced current flow” (see Appellant’s
Brief, p. 29, first full paragraph).
Weaver discloses a heating mechanism that radiates
heat in all directions, especially the downward direction
towards the electrolyte and the bottom of the cell to
maintain the electrolyte in a molten state (see US ‘340,
fig. 2; p. 3, cot. 2, lines 61-74). Additionally, the
rejection set forth in the prior Office actions further
relied on the reference of Berclaz, which expressly teaches
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007