Ex Parte Chapman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2013

11694633 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/694,633 03/30/2007 Ivan D. Chapman GP-306486-FCA-CHE 1281
65798 7590 03/13/2013
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
COHEN, STEFANIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IVAN D. CHAPMAN and
REENA L. DATTA
__________

Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1, 3-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22, and 23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a water vapor transfer (WVT) unit
for humidifying an inlet flow to a fuel cell stack where flow channel plates
within the WVT unit have a hydrophilic film so that membranes within the
WVT are exposed to maximum possible water pressure so as to improve
water transfer from a cathode exhaust stream to a cathode inlet air stream
(Spec. para. [0001]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A water vapor transfer unit for humidifying an inlet
stream being sent to a fuel cell stack, said unit comprising:
a plurality of spaced apart membranes; and
a plurality of plates positioned between the membranes,
said plates being stamped metal plates that are configured to
define flow channels where the flow channels facing one side of
each membrane provide water vapor to the membranes and the
flow channels facing an opposite side of each membrane collect
water vapor from the membranes, and wherein the side of the
plate that provides the water vapor includes a hydrophilic
coating on the flow channels that causes the water vapor to
form a film on the plate and transfer water vapor to the
membrane more efficiently, wherein the hydrophilic coating is
formed by a chromic acid etch that roughens the surface of the
plates to form the coating.
Appellants appeal the following prior art rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11-13, 15, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as being unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art
in paragraph [0007] of the Specification (AAPA) in view of Blunk
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

3
(US 2006/0040148 A1 published Feb. 23, 2006), Iqbal
(US 6,649,031 B1 issued Nov. 18, 2003), and Hartnack
(US 2004/0258969 A1 published Dec. 23, 2004).
2. Claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack, and Vyas
(US 2006/0216571 A1 published Sept. 28, 2006).
3. Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack, and
Fukui (JP 11-219713 published Aug. 10, 1999, as translated).
4. Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack and
Meissner (EP 20030006610 published Nov. 26, 2003, as translated).

REJECTION (1)
Appellants argue the claims as a group with the primary focus on
independent claims 1, 13, and 23 and dependent claims 4 and 16 (App. Br.
10-14). We select claims 1 and 4 as representative of the claim groupings.

ISSUE
1. Regarding claim 1, did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the AAPA water
vapor transfer (WVT) structure to include a hydrophilic coating on the
flow channels wherein the hydrophilic coating is formed by chromic
acid etch that roughens the surface of the plates as Blunk, Iqbal and
Hartnack teach is known to do in a fuel cell environment? We decide
this issue in the negative.
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

4
2. Regarding claim 4, did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that the
combined teachings of the AAPA, Blunk, Iqbal, and Hartnack would
have suggested coating the hydrophilic coating on each side of the
plate forming the flow channels? We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Issue (1): Claim 1
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions may be located on pages 3-6
of the Answer. The Examiner finds that the AAPA teaches the WVT unit
structure that includes flow channels defined by plates and a water transfer
membrane positioned there between (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that the
AAPA does not teach that the flow channels are formed from stamped metal
plates or a hydrophilic coating formed by chromic etch. Id. The Examiner
relies on Iqbal to teach that it is known to stamp-form metal plates into flow
channels for use in fuel cells and concludes that it would have been obvious
to use stamped metal plates as the plates in the AAPA to ensure specific size
flow field channels (id.). The Examiner finds that Blunk teaches chemically
treating a composite bipolar plate by immersing in an acid bath to form a
hydrophilic surface on the plate (id. at 5). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to chemically treat the plates of the AAPA and
Iqbal by immersion in an acid bath to create a hydrophilic surface on the
AAPA plates. Id.
The Examiner relies on Hartnack to teach that it was known to use the
same materials in both a fuel cell and a WVT unit (id.). The Examiner finds
that Hartnack teaches that the benefit of using the same materials, shapes,
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

5
and sizes makes a humidification cell very simple, quick and inexpensive to
produce. Id. The Examiner analogizes the structure of Hartnack’s
humidification cell with the structure of the WVT unit (id. at 12).
Appellants argue that because Iqbal and Blunk teach forming bipolar
plates that are used in fuel cells not WVT plates, one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have been able to fit the teachings of references together like
“pieces of a puzzle” citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007) (App. Br. 12). Appellants contend that Hartnack’s humidification
unit is different and distinct from Appellants’ WVT unit because Hartnack’s
humidification unit is part of the fuel cell stack whereas the WVT unit is
separate from the fuel cell and humidifies a single inlet stream that is being
sent to a fuel cell stack (id. at 13).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive as they fail to address
specifically the Examiner’s stated reasoning for the combination (Ans. 4-5,
14-15; Reply Br. 1-3). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill
would have combined Iqbal’s stamping process to form the AAPA’s plates
in order to ensure specific size flow field channels (Ans. 5). The Examiner
concludes that one of ordinary skill would have used Blunk’s chemical
etching process to render the flow passages hydrophilic in order to provide
better water management to the WVT unit (id. at 14-15). While Appellants
contend that one of ordinary skill would not have been able to piece the
teaching of the prior art together like a puzzle, the Examiner’s specific
reasons for the combination are not addressed by Appellants.
As the Examiner finds, the structure of the WVT unit is taught by the
AAPA. The Examiner relies on teachings in the related fuel cell art to teach
that stamping may be used to form flow channels from flat plates and that
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

6
chemically etching to make a flow channel surface hydrophilic is known to
improve water management in flow channels. The Examiner’s combination
of prior art, in our view, is simply the predictable use of prior art forming
and treating techniques (i.e., stamping and chemical etching) according to
their established functions (i.e., forming flow channels and rendering a
surface hydrophilic). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Moreover, that the prior art does not explicitly teach putting a
hydrophilic coating on a stamped plate in a WVT unit is not determinative.
Rather, the court can take account of the inferences and creative steps one of
ordinary skill would employ. Id. at 418. The combined teachings of the
AAPA, Blunk, Iqbal, and Hartnack would have suggested to the ordinary
artisan to place a hydrophilic coating where water management was
necessary, such as where cathode exhaust or other water laden gas is present;
such as the flow channels formed in the plate member of a WVT unit.
Appellants’ arguments regarding Hartnack are premised on an argued
distinction between Appellants’ water vapor transfer (WVT) unit and a fuel
cell (App. Br. 13). We understand the Examiner to rely on Hartnack to
further provide a basis for using Iqbal’s and Blunk’s teachings regarding
bipolar plates in fuel cells to modify the AAPA’s WVT unit structure.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hartnack teaches that the
humidification unit and fuel cell may be made from similar materials, shapes
and sizes to simplify construction of the humidification unit (Ans. 5). The
Examiner finds that Hartnack’s humidification device is analogous to a
WVT unit (id. at 5, 12-14). Based on this similarity, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the AAPA’s WVT unit
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

7
structure based upon the teachings regarding fuel cell bipolar plates in Iqbal
and Blunk as noted supra.
Accordingly, even if the WVT unit is separate and distinct unit as
argued by Appellants (App. Br. 13), the Examiner is not suggesting to
modify the AAPA to have a stack of fuel cells and humidification cells as
taught by Hartnack. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that there are
similarities between Hartnack’s humidification unit and the WVT unit.
These similarities are discussed by the Examiner on pages 13-14 of the
Answer. We agree with the Examiner that such similarities and teachings
would have further suggested using the teachings of Iqbal and Blunk
regarding forming and treating techniques for fuel cell bipolar plates to
modify the AAPA’s WVT unit structure.
On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 over the AAPA in view of Iqbal, Blunk and Hartnack.

Issue (2): Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites: “wherein each plate
includes a hydrophilic coating on both sides of the plate.”
The Examiner finds that Blunk teaches immersing the bipolar plate
into an acid bath (Ans. 6). Because the plate is immersed in the acid the
Examiner finds that Blunk teaches that each side of the plate is surfaced with
a hydrophilic coating (id.).
Appellants argue that Blunk does not teach a WVT unit plate and so
cannot teach forming a hydrophilic coating on each side of a WVT plate
(App. Br. 14).
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

8
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive as it fails to address the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 which depends from claim 1. As noted
supra, the Examiner’s rejection is based upon modifying the AAPA’s WVT
unit plates to have the features of Blunk and Iqbal. Specifically, the
Examiner proposes to modify the AAPA’s WVT plate to have Blunk’s
chromic acid etched hydrophilic surface. Therefore, the Examiner is not
relying on Blunk alone to teach a WVT plate with a hydrophilic coating on
each side. Rather, the combination of the AAPA’s WVT unit plate and
Blunk’s teachings would have suggested forming a WVT plate with a
chromic-acid etch surface on each side of the plate.
For these reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 over
the AAPA in view of Iqbal, Blunk and Hartnack.

REJECTION (2)
Appellants’ arguments focus on claims 5 and 17 (App. Br. 15, 18).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that the combined teachings of
the AAPA Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack, and Vyas would have suggested placing a
hydrophilic metal oxide coating on the plates of the AAPA as required by
claims 5 and 17? We decide this issue in the negative.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the AAPA, Blunk, Iqbal and Hartnack fail to
teach the hydrophilic coating is a metal oxide (Ans. 6, 9). The Examiner
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

9
relies on Vyas to teach forming metal oxides as hydrophilic coatings for fuel
cells on bipolar plates (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to incorporate a hydrophilic coating on the AAPA plates as
modified by Blunk, Iqbal, and Hartnack to obtain a hydrophilic coating (id.
at 7, 9).
Appellants argue that the combination of prior art does not teach a
WVT unit with stamped plates that are used to humidify an inlet stream
before the inlet stream is sent to a fuel cell stack and thus cannot teach a
WVT unit with plates containing a metal oxide hydrophilic coating (App.
Br. 15, 18).
For reasons explained above with regard to claim 1, we find
Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. Appellants’ arguments that the
combination of references fail to teach a WVT unit with stamped plates that
have a metal oxide coating is premised on the same faulty argument made
regarding claim 1.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection over the AAPA in
view of Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack, and Vyas.

REJECTION (3)
Appellants argue claims 7 and 19 (App. Br. 16, 18).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that the combined teachings of
the AAPA, Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack and Fukui would have suggested
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

10
applying a carbide hydrophilic coating on a WVT plate as required by
claims 7 and 19? We decide this issue in the negative.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the AAPA, Blunk, Iqbal and Hartnack teach
the subject matter of claims 7 and 19, except for the use of a carbide as a
hydrophilic coating (Ans. 7, 9-10). The Examiner finds that Fukui teaches
using a hydrophilic coating on a separator for a fuel cell (id.). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to form a carbide coating on the
flowfield plate as suggested by the combined teachings of the AAPA, Iqbal,
Blunk and Hartnack to attain good corrosion resistance, good conductivity,
and low contact resistance even under a strong acid environment (id. at 7-8,
10). The Examiner finds that low contact resistance means that the material
is hydrophilic (id. at 8, 10).
Appellants argue that because Fukui fails to teach a WVT unit plate
with a hydrophilic coating, it cannot teach WVT unit plates with a
hydrophilic coating (App. Br. 16, 19).
For the reasons discussed with regard to claim 1, Appellants’
arguments are unpersuasive. We find that the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested forming and treating a WVT unit plate for
the reasons noted above.
Regarding claim 19, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that
low contact resistance in Fukui can be interpreted as a hydrophilic material
is conclusory (id. at 18-19).
The Examiner relies on paragraph 18 of Hammerschmidt
(US 2007/0020503 A1 published Jan. 25, 2007) for the disclosure that
Appeal 2011-013599
Application 11/694,633

11
hydrophilic coating may impart low contact resistance to a surface (Ans. 19).
Appellants do not contest or complain about this finding of the Examiner.
On this record, the preponderance of the evidence favors the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection over the AAPA in view of Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack, and Fukui.
REJECTION (4)
Appellants rely on arguments made regarding claim 1 (App. Br. 16-
17, 19). Appellants argue that Meissner does not cure the argued deficiency
of Blunk, Iqbal, and Hartnack. Id.
As noted above with regard to claim 1, we fail to find any deficiency
in the combined teachings of the AAPA, Blunk, Iqbal and Hartnack. As
Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10
and 22, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection over the AAPA in view of
Blunk, Iqbal, Hartnack and Meissner.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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)(1).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

bar