Appeal No. 2004-1043
Application No. 09/960,907
capable of being performed regardless of the location of
the heating mechanism.
Regarding claims 18-43, which do require certain
structural features, specifically the use of an air sweep
positioned below the bottom surface of the metal cell
liner, the Berclaz reference expressly teaches that an air
sweep provides the ability to heat and cool, as well as
provide additional insulation when air is not passed
through the space (see WO `120, p. 26, lines 25-36). The
Beck paper requires a cell having a metal liner and
insulation surrounding the apparatus (see Beck paper, p.
359, col.1). Beck also requires the addition of heat (see
Beck paper, p. 359, col. 2). Therefore, one skilled in the
art would have been motivated to use the air sweep of
Berclaz, which is positioned below the bottom of the metal
liner, in the method of Beck because it provides heat to
the cell and also insulates the cell to prevent heat loss.
One skilled in the art would recognize that the heating
mechanism of Berclaz would be beneficial in any
electrolytic cell having a metal liner and used in a method
requiring the addition of heat. Therefore, the structural
differences between Berclaz and Beck are irrelevant.
Regarding claims 35-43, which requires the addition of
heat to the bottom of the cell liner and the placement of a
heater adjacent the cell bottom, the prior art references
teach all of the limitations of the claims. The Beck paper
describes a startup method requiring steps of adding
electrolyte to the cell tan inherent step), heating the
cell, completely melting the electrolyte, and applying a
current to generate oxygen bubbles at the anodes and
aluminum at the cathodes (see Beck paper, p. 358, col. 1,
38
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007