Appeal 2007-0617
Application 10/292,321
direction of the flow is rapidly changed but is “constant in frequency and
output” while “direct current” is a current whose direction is always the
same.2 Therefore we determine that the words of clause (iv) in claim 1 on
appeal in their ordinary usage would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art to include both alternating current (AC) and direct
current (DC), since both types of current are “constant,” i.e., uninterrupted.
In view of the foregoing claim construction, we determine that
Venkatachalam, directed to an AC electrolysis, does not “teach away” from
the claimed “constant” electrolysis current. Even assuming arguendo that
claim 1 on appeal was limited to a DC electrochemical process, we note that
the mere teaching of Venkatachalam of reduced efficiencies for DC
electrolysis does not constitute a “teaching away” since the objective of Ni
dissolution is still achieved, albeit with somewhat “inferior” results. See
Gurley, supra.
We determine that Venkatachalam clearly teaches that current density,
HCl concentration, frequency of the AC, and time of electrolysis are all
result effective variables (e.g., see the Abstract on p. 127 and discussion on
pp. 129-130). Specifically, we determine that Venkatachalam teaches that
frequency has the most significant effect on Ni dissolution, with lower
frequencies yielding the best results, thus suggesting even lower frequencies
(p. 129, left col.). We also determine that Venkatachalam teaches the
beneficial results for increased HCl concentration, thus suggesting
concentrations higher than the 2.0 N tested (p. 128, right col.). Krynitz is
directed to a similar decomposition process to that of Venkatachalam, and
2 See Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary, 3rd ed., Grant, ed., pp. 37 and 244, The
Blakiston Co., 1953.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013