Appeal No. 2005-1934 Page 3
Application No. 10/022,357
sintering of the anode at high temperature and the solid diffusion of an oxide into
the anode surface, said valve metal oxide being selected from the group consisting
of TiO2, SnO2, RuO2, and IrO2 sintered at 450 to 550°C.
The Examiner maintains a rejection against claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
evidence of unpatentability the Examiner relies upon British Patent 1,480,807 issued to Beer and
published July 27, 1977 (Beer).
We affirm substantially for the reasons provided by the Examiner as expressed in the
Answer and the prior Office Action of April 6, 2004 referenced in the Answer (Answer, p. 2).
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
The Examiner’s rejection is based upon the disclosure in Beer of a method of forming a
catalytic oxide anode of RuO2 type with a metal oxide layer of TiO2 between the titanium
support and the RuO2 coating (Office Action of April 6, 2004, pp. 3-4). According to the
findings of the Examiner, both the first metal oxide layer and the RuO2 layer are subjected to a
three step heating process (Id.). The main difference between the method of Beer and that of the
claim lies in the temperatures and times of the heating (Id.). Considering the teachings of Beer
as a whole, we agree with the Examiner, based on the fact that both Beer and Appellants perform
the heating to form and adhere the oxide layers onto the support and to provide optimal
properties in the anode, that optimization of the temperatures and times would have been a
matter of routine experimentation within the ordinary skill in the art (Id.). In such a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007