Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
would recognize that the teachings of Steiger could be used
in any aluminum-producing electrolytic cell because only
two startup methods exist for such cells, melting before or
after addition, and Steiger teaches that they can be
equivalently used.
ii. Differences in recited method (XII.H, pages
40-41)
Regarding claim 35, Appellant states that Berclaz
differs from the Applicant’s invention because "the cathode
is cooled during operation to form a protective paste" (see
Appellant’s Brief, p. 40, last paragraph.
The formation of a protective pastels a temperature
dependant function of the electrolyte. Therefore, the
ability of the heating mechanism of Berclaz to form a
protective paste demonstrates the ability to control
temperature of the electrolyte. Thus, the heating
mechanism of Berclaz is capable of performing the function
of controlling the temperature of the electrolyte by
cooling or heating.
J. Advisory Action and Conclusion (XIII and XIV, pages
42-44)
Appellant restates positions taken previously with
regard to the differences in structure between the prior
art references. Appellant insists that the structural
differences prevent the combination of the references.
Each of the references relied discloses a method of
electrolytically producing aluminum from alumina using
anodes and cathodes. In addition, the Beck paper, Weaver
and Berclaz all suggest the application of heat to the
36
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007