Ex parte Chen et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 1998

08432474 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 1, 1995. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CHAO-PENG CHEN and TILAK V. BOMMARAJU
____________
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,4741
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS and OWENS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 16 through
18, 20, 21, and 23. Claim 6, 11 through 13, 15, and 22 have
been withdrawn from further consideration as directed to a
non-elected embodiment.
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
2
The subject matter on appeal relates to the reactivation
of deactivated noble metal or noble metal oxide coated anodes.
The reactivation is accomplished by electrolessly or
electrolytically depositing a coating of a noble metal
directly over the existing coating on the deactivated anode.
Claims 1 and 8 are representative and are reproduced below:
1. A method of reactivating a deactivated anode which
comprises a substrate having thereon an anode coating of noble
metal or noble metal oxide, comprising electrolessly or
electrolytically depositing on said anode coating a
reactivating coating of a noble metal selected from the group
consisting of platinum, palladium, iridium, rhodium,
ruthenium, osmium, and mixtures thereof.
8. A method according to Claim 1 wherein said
reactivating coating is deposited on said anode without
removing said anode from the cell in which it was used.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner are:
de Nora et al. (de Nora) 3,684,543 Aug.
15, 1972
Fabian et al. (Fabian) 4,088,558 May 9,
1978
Beer 3,711,385 Jan.
16, 1973
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated by or obvious over
Fabian in view of Beer and de Nora.
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
3
With the exception of claim 8, which appellants request
separate consideration for, the claims stand or fall together.
The examiner correctly indicates that the Fabian patent
discloses a method of reactivating a deactivated anode which
comprises a substrate having thereon an anode coating of noble
metal or noble metal oxide, comprising the step of depositing
on the anode coating a reactivating coating of a noble metal
selected from the group consisting of platinum, iridium,
rhodium, palladium, ruthenium, osmium, and mixtures thereof to
form a reactivated anode. See the Abstract and column 2,
lines 1-8 and lines 62-66.
The examiner’s anticipation rejection of the appealed
claims is based on an interpretation of the Fabian patent,
which refers to and incorporates certain disclosures from U.S.
Patent No. 3,711,385 to Beer and U.S. Patent No. 3,632,498 to
de Nora at column 2, line 63 through column 3, line 1 as
follows:
In each of the embodiments the valve
metal members 1 in reticulated mesh, rod or
other form are provided with an
electrically conducting electrocatalytic
coating which
is applied and baked on as described, for
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
4
example, in U.S. Patent Nos. 3,632,498 and
3,711,385, so that the reconstructed and
recoated anodes do not have to be heated
after the added portions are attached to
the anode risers or the portions of the
previously used anode envelopes or working
faces which are attached to the risers
[emphasis added].
Appellants contend, and we think correctly, that the
“applied and baked on as described” language with reference to
the de Nora and Beer patents pertains to conventional industry
practice which involves applying a new coating using a thermal
decomposition method rather than an electrolytic method as
claimed. In this regard, de Nora refers to a coating mixture
comprising halides of noble metals which is applied to a
cleaned electrode to be recoated, by brush, roller,
electrostatic spraying, dipping or other coating methods in a
series of 5 to 15 coats with drying and baking at 300° to 460°
C. between each coat until the required coating weight has
been applied. See de Nora at column 4, lines 35-64.
Likewise, the Beer patent discloses a similar working
example wherein a mixture of a platinum metal compound is
applied to an anode core by painting or brushing with
intermediate heating. See example 1A of Beer. Accordingly,
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
5
we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of the appealed
claims based on an anticipation theory.
On the other hand, we find that the examiner has adequate
factual support for the rejection of appealed claim 1 based on
an obviousness rationale (35 U.S.C. § 103). In this regard,
we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the reference to the application and baking
technique referred to in Beer and de Nora as an exemplary
technique for depositing a reactivating coding of a noble
metal. In this regard, the Beer patent broadly indicates that
an anode core can be covered with a desired noble metal by
techniques such as galvanic plating or by thermal
decomposition. See the reference at column 3, lines 50
through 66. Moreover, Beer specifically discloses that an
electrolytic technique may be used to accomplish the same
purpose. See Beer at column 4, lines 8-17. We recognize, as
argued by appellants, that Beer is describing techniques for
preparing a new anode, not reactivating an old deactivated
anode. However, we agree with the examiner that the
techniques
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
6
disclosed in Beer for applying the noble metal or noble metal
oxide coating would have been considered alternative obvious
ways to apply the coating to a deactivated anode.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the combined
disclosures of the relied upon references establish a prima
facie case of obviousness for the subject matter defined by
appeal claim 1. Although appellants assert that the anodes
reactivated according to the claimed invention last as long as
new anodes,
we observe that one of the objects of the prior art as
described in de Nora is to produce a recoated, previously used
dimensionally stable electrode which will be equal in
performance to the same electrode as initially coated. See de
Nora at column 2, lines 49 though 51. Accordingly, the
production of an anode reactivated according to the claimed
invention which lasts as long as a new anode is an expected
result in this art. Thus, we conclude as the examiner did,
that the claimed subject matter defined by appealed claim 1
would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since claims 2 through 5, 7, 10, 16 through 18, 20, 21 and 23
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
7
stand or fall together with claim 1, we also necessarily
sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Appealed claim 8 is another matter. As appellants point
out, claim 8 covers a process for reactivating the anode
wherein the reactivating coating is deposited without removing
the anode from the cell in which it is used. We find no
disclosures in any of the relied upon references, nor has the
examiner referred to any disclosure, which would have
suggested the subject matter defined by claim 8. Indeed, as
appellants point out, the Fabian reference teaches that the
electrode members to be recoated must be separated from the
risers in the electrolytic cell to prevent the reheating of
the risers. Thus, we reverse the examiner’s rejections of
appealed claim 8.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-
part.
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
9
Occidental Chemical Corporation
Patent Department
360 Rainbow Boulevard South
Niagara Falls, NY 14303
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 96-2797
Serial No.
08/432,474
Judge JOHN D. SMITH
Judge OWENS
Judge GARRIS
Received: 19 Nov 98
Typed: 20 Nov 98
Revision: 24 Nov 98

DECSION: AFFIRMED-IN-
PART
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Brief or Heard
Group Art Unit: 1102
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk (FOIA): ____
Updated Monthly Report: ____