Appeal 2007-0617
Application 10/292,321
ISSUES ON APPEAL
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatachalam in view of Krynitz (Answer 4).1
Appellants contend that Venkatachalam “teaches away” from the
claimed invention since this reference teaches greatly reduced efficiencies
result when metal dissolution is conducted with direct current (DC)
electrolysis as compared to alternating current (AC) electrolysis (Br. 3, 5).
Appellants contend that Venkatachalam discloses a frequency much
higher than the claimed frequency, while also teaching that both the anode
and cathode are fabricated from a superalloy (Br. 3).
Appellants further contend that Krynitz only discloses DC electrolysis
with an anode superalloy, and the teachings of Krynitz regarding voltage do
not reasonably extend to the AC electrolysis of Venkatachalam (Br. 4).
The Examiner contends that Venkatachalam teaches that using a
lower frequency increases the dissolution of nickel, thus suggesting the
range recited in the claims on appeal (Answer 5). The Examiner also
contends that Krynitz suggests a suitable voltage range for decomposing
superalloys, and thus it would have been obvious to have modified
Venkatachalam by using the voltage range suggested by Krynitz (id.).
Accordingly, the issues on appeal are as follows: (1) does
Venkatachalam teach away from the claimed invention?; and (2) would the
claimed frequencies and voltages have been suggested to one of ordinary
skill in this art from the teachings of Venkatachalam and Krynitz?
1 The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 under § 103(a) over Krynitz in view of
Venkatachalam has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Answer 2-3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013