Ex Parte Anastasijevic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2015

10589592 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/589,592 0710512007
95402 7590 12/22/2015
LEYDIG, VOIT AND MA YER
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON A VENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nikola Anastasijevic
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
811842 8644
EXAMINER
MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2015 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIKOLA ANASTASIJEVIC, JEAN-PAUL NEPPER,
MARTIN KOENEKE, DIRK LOHRBERG, TOM MARTTILA, and
HENRI VIR TANEN
Appeal 2014-002110
Application 10/589,592 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Anastasijevic2 in view of Virtanen3 and
Morin, 4 adding additional references covering dependent claim limitations.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Outotec Oyj. App. Br.
1.
2 US 5,679,240, issued October 21, 1997.
3 US 6,342,136 Bl, issued January 29, 2002.
4 US 2,443,112, issued June 8, 1948.
Appeal 2014-002110
Application 10/589,592
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 22-33
are also pending, but have been withdrawn from consideration and are not
before us on appeal.
WeAFFIRM. 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a process for electrochemical winning or
refining of copper by electrodepositing copper from an electrolyte solution
containing ionogenic copper. Spec. 1 :5-6. The electrolyte is passed through
an electrolysis plant comprising at least one electrolytic cell having a tank
for receiving the electrolyte solution, and at least two electrodes immersed in
the solution by hanger bars and serving as anode and cathode alternately
arranged at a distance from each other. Id. at 1:6-10. According to
Appellants, the invention achieves a sufficiently uniform deposition of
copper on the cathodes at electrode immersion depths of more than 1.2 m,
resulting in greater copper production per cathode and reduced costs per ton
of extracted copper. Id. at 4: 1-10.
Although Appellants disclose that the electrodes can in principle be
positioned, fixed and supplied with current in any way known in the art (id.
at 5: 18-20), Appellants further disclose, in a particular embodiment of the
invention, the electrodes each have a first end of the hanger bar resting on
one of two contact bars via a two-line contact allowing higher currents to be
transmitted from the contact bars to the electrodes (id. at 5:---6:3). For such
5 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification (Spec.) filed August 15,
2006, Appellants' Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 26, 2013, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed October 18, 2013, and Appellants' Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed December 17, 2013.
2
Appeal 2014-002110
Application 10/589,592
two-line contact, Appellants disclose a contact bar having a substantially
trapezoidal indentation where the hanger bar ends have a substantially
rectangular cross-section. Id. at 6:3---6. However, Appellants disclose that
the two-line contact can be effected in any other way known in the art. Id.
at 6:6-7. Appellants further disclose the electrodes each have a second end
of the hanger bar resting on an equalizer bar arranged on one of the two
contact bars, whereby the distribution of current between the electrodes is
rendered more uniform. Id. at 6:21-30.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to Appellants'
Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitation at
issue is italicized.
1. A process tor electrodepositing copper from an electrolyte
solution containing a metal in ionogenic form, the process
compnsmg:
passing an electrolyte through an electrolysis plant
comprising at least one electrolytic cell having an electrolyte
tank for receiving the electrolyte which includes at least one
electrode serving as an anode and at least one electrode
serving as a cathode, the electrodes being alternately
arranged at a distance from each other, each of the anode
and the cathode including a hanger bar with a first end and a
second end;
distributing current between the anode and the cathode
by providing a first contact bar and a second contact bar at
an edge of tile electrolyte tank, each of the contact bars
being connected to a power source, the first end of the
hanger bar of the cathode resting on the first contact bar via
a two-line contact and the first end of the hanger bar of the
anode resting on the second contact bar via a two-line
contact, the second end of the hanger bar of the cathode
resting on a cathode equalizer bar disposed on one of the
3
Appeal 2014-002110
Application 10/589,592
contact bars and the second end of the hanger bar of the
anode resting on an anode equalizer bar disposed on one of
the contact bars; and
immersing, during operation of the electrolysis, the at
least one cathode into the electrolyte over a length of at least
1.2 meters.
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' arguments in this appeal is
whether the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Virtanen teaches a busbar
construction for electrolytic cells having two contact bars at each of
electrolytic tanks, wherein one end of each of the anode and cathode hanger
bars rests on one of the two contact bars, and the other end of each of the
hanger bars rests on an equalizer bar disposed on the other contact bar.
We answer this question in the negative and will, therefore, sustain
the Examiner's§ 103 rejections. In doing so, we adopt the Examiner's
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and responses to argument set forth in
the Examiner's Answer as our own. The following is added for emphasis.
The Examiner finds, without dispute, Anastasijevic teaches a copper
electrodeposition process as claimed except for the particular electrical
contact arrangement recited in claim 1 (the italicized limitations above).
Ans. 2-3. The Examiner finds Virtanen teaches, inter alia, a bus bar
construction for electrolytic cells having two contact bars at each of
electrolytic tanks, wherein one end of each of the anode and cathode hanger
bars rests on one of the two contact bars, and the other end of each of the
hanger bars rests on an equalizer bar disposed on the other contact bar to
evenly distribute current between electrodes, simplify electrode contact
construction, and freely change electrode spacing. Id. at 3. In addition, the
4
Appeal 2014-002110
Application 10/589,592
Examiner finds, without dispute, Morin teaches contact structures for
electrolytic cells including hanger bars resting on contact bars via two-line
contacts to maximize the current-carrying capacity in electrolytic cells
arranged in series. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to have incorporated a busbar construction in Anastasijevic's
electrolysis cell as taught by Virtanen in order to evenly distribute current
between electrodes, simplify electrode contact construction, and freely
change electrode spacing, and to further modify such construction to include
two-line contacts as taught by Morin between the header bars and the
contact and equalizer bars in order to maximize the cell's current-carrying
capacity. Id. at 3--4.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding regarding Virtanen, in
particular, that Virtanen teaches one end of each hanger bar rests on a
contact bar, while the other end of each hanger bar rests on an equalizer bar. 6
AppeUants contend that, contrary to the Examiner's finding, Virtanen
teaches both ends of each of support lugs 3, 4 rest on either the support
elements 11, 12 or the bulges of the main busbar. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2.
Appellants direct our attention to Virtanen, Figure 1, wherein both ends of
6 Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings that Virtanen's support
lugs 3, 4 are hanger bars, that Virtanen' s support elements 11, 12 are
equalizer bars, and that Virtanen's main busbar 6 with bulges 8, 9 is a
contact bar. See App. Br. 5 ("even if the support lugs 3, 4 can be
interpreted as hanger bars, the main busbar 6 can be interpreted as a contact
bar and the support elements 11, 12 can be interpreted as equalizer bars");
Reply Br. 2-3 ("even if the support lugs 3 and 4 can be interpreted as hanger
bars, even if the main bus bar 6 (with bulges 8 and 9) can be interpreted as a
contact bar, and even if the support elements 11, 12 can be interpreted as
equalizer bars").
5
Appeal 2014-002110
Application 10/589,592
support lugs 3 of anode 1 in electrolytic cell A rest on bulge 8 of each busbar
6, and both ends of support lugs 4 of cathode 2 in electrolytic cell A rest on
support elements 11 of each busbar 6. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants are correct that Virtanen's Figure 1 depicts an electrolytic cell A
wherein both ends of the hanger bars (support lugs 3, 4) appear to rest on
either the contact bar (busbar 6) or the equalizer bar (support elements 11 ).
Notwithstanding this fact, Virtanen teaches Figure 2 more accurately depicts
how main busbar 6 is placed on top of insulating plate 7 on side wall 5. As
shown in Figure 2, one end of anode hanger bars 3 rests on the contact bar 6,
8 and one end of cathode hanger bars 4 rests on equalizer bar 11. Virtanen,
Fig. 2, 3:49-4: 12. Virtanen further teaches that the other ends of the cathode
hanger bar in electrolytic cell A, not shown in Figure 2, rests on contact bar
6, 9, so that the cathodes are horizontal on their hanger bars. Virtanen,
4: 17-23. One of ordinary skin in the art, upon reading these teachings of
Virtanen would reasonably conclude that this teaching is either the accurate
depiction of Virtanen's structure on each end of the hanger bars or, at least is
an alternative to that shown in Virtanen's Figure 1.
Furthermore, Virtanen teaches that in electrolytic cell B, equalizer bar
12 is set at a height such that the anode hanger bar of the other end that rests
on contact bar 6, 8 is at the same height. Virtanen, 4:32-34. Given
Virtanen's description that the cathode hanger bar in electrolytic cell A rests
on the contact bar at one end and the equalizer bar at the other end, one
skilled in the art would reasonably expect the anode hanger bar in
electrolytic cell A similarly rests on the equalizer bar at one end and the
contact bar at the other end just as taught for electrolytic cell B. Indeed,
6
Appeal 2014-002110
Application 10/589,592
Virtanen's teaching for the cathode hanger bar necessarily requires that the
contact bar on the other side of electrolytic cell A is in the same orientation
as depicted in Figure 2, thereby necessarily resulting in the other end of the
anode hanger bar 3 resting on the equalizer bar 12. Accordingly, Appellants
have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's finding with regard to
Virtanen.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, and
11-22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
sl
7