Appeal 2007-1368
Application 10/601,602
does not serve to distinguish the claimed structural components from the
components of Sawamoto's electrolytic cell. Appellants have presented no
argument, let alone evidence, that the electrolytic cell of Sawamoto, which
comprises the components recited in claim 34, is not capable of continuous,
cyclic production of an alkali metal halate. Consequently, Appellants have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants have not presented a different, substantive argument
against the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 35. To whit, Appellants
have not refuted the Examiner's legal conclusion that "it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the anode of
deNora et al for the anode of Sawamoto et al to adapt the cell of Sawamoto
et al for making chlorine gas as taught by deNora et al because the
electrocatalytic anode of deNora et al had low chlorine over voltage" (page 5
of Answer, fifth para.).
We also note that Appellants have not presented separate, substantive
arguments for dependent claims 9-17 and 35.
As a final point, in view of the denial of Appellants' petition under
37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a)(3), filed December 12, 2006, requesting the Examiner
to reopen prosecution, we find it unnecessary to grant Appellants' further
request to remand this application to the Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013