Ex Parte MATHIE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2019

14619717 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/619,717 02/11/2015
28395 7590 03/12/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig Michael MATHIE
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.
83488750 5002
EXAMINER
STUCKEY, PHILIP A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CRAIG MICHAEL MATHIE, MICHAEL ALLEN DEBOLT,
BRIAN GILLESPEY, WILLIAM F. SANDERSON, and ZIJIE LU
Appeal2018-005704
Application 14/619,717
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 7-14 and 21-28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 11, 2015; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated August 25, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.") filed December 8, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
March 15, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 15,
2018.
2 Appellant is Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which the Appeal
Brief identifies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005704
Application 14/619,717
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a fuel cell for an automotive
vehicle. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 7-the sole independent claim on appeal-reads:
7. A fuel cell assembly comprising:
a membrane electrode assembly sandwiched between
first and second plates that each include opposing.first and
second regions that each define a first coolant header and a
second coolant header, and in response to a cold-start mode,
the first plate being configured to circulate coolant from the
first region to the second region and the second plate being
configured to circulate coolant from the second region to the
first region.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in
dispute).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as anticipated by
Yamazaki. 3
II. Claims 21-284 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as anticipated
by Song. 5
III. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Yamazaki and Lee. 6
3 US 2014/0356748 Al, published December 4, 2014.
4 Claims 7-10, 29, and 30 also were rejected as anticipated by Song. Final
Act. 7. The Examiner withdrew the rejection as applied to claims 7-10. See
Interview Summary dated September 7, 2017. Claims 29 and 30 are
canceled.
5 US 2012/0028156 Al, published February 2, 2012.
6 US 2007/0287045 Al, published December 13, 2007.
2
Appeal2018-005704
Application 14/619,717
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Yamazaki describes a fuel cell assembly that
meets all the elements recited in claim 7. Final Act. 13 ( citing Yamazaki,
Fig. 3). Particularly, the Examiner finds that the singular coolant inlet and
singular coolant outlet depicted in Yamazaki' s Figure 3 satisfy the first and
second coolant headers recited in claim 7. Id. The Examiner premises that
finding on an interpretation that claim 7 requires only two coolant headers.
Ans. 4 ("The claim recites only a first coolant header and a second coolant
header; the claim does not recite a third coolant header and a fourth coolant
header.").
Appellant argues that the Examiner's claim interpretation is incorrect,
and that claim 7 requires that each plate includes four coolant headers, which
Yamazaki does not describe. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. We agree. Claim 7
recites, inter alia, "first and second plates that each include opposing first
and second regions that each define a first coolant header and a second
coolant header" ( emphasis added). Thus, claim 7 expressly requires that
each region of a recited plate defines two coolant headers, and each recited
plate includes two regions. Accordingly, Appellant correctly contends that
each plate recited in claim 7 requires four coolant headers. The Examiner's
reading, on the other hand, improperly disregards the word "each" in the
phrase, "first and second regions that each define a first coolant header and a
second coolant header."
For the foregoing reason, we are persuaded that the Examiner's
finding of anticipation by Yamazaki is premised on an incorrect
interpretation of the claims. Accordingly, Rejection I is not sustained.
3
Appeal2018-005704
Application 14/619,717
Rejection II
The Examiner's finding of anticipation by Song is premised on the
same incorrect interpretation of claim 7 identified above. 7 See Ans. 6 ("The
Office's position is that only two coolant headers are required by the claim
as discussed above."). The Examiner alternatively finds that Song describes
four coolant headers. Id. ( citing Song, Fig. 1 ( elements 45, 46, 50, 52) ).
However, the four elements identified by the Examiner as constituting four
coolant headers are defined by different plates. Song, Fig. 1 (indicating
ports 45 and 46 on plate 42, and ports 50 and 52 on plate 44). The Examiner
does not present any finding of a description in Song corresponding to a
singular plate that defines four coolant headers.
For the foregoing reason, we are persuaded that the Examiner's
finding of anticipation by Song also is premised on an incorrect
interpretation of the claims. Rejection II is not sustained.
Rejection III
Claim 14 depends from claim 7. The Examiner does not rely upon
Lee in a manner that corrects the improper claim interpretation applied in
rejecting claim 7. Accordingly, Rejection III is not sustained for the reasons
given in connection with Rejection I.
7 Although the Examiner rejects only claims 21-28 as anticipated by Song,
these claims depend from independent claim 7 and, therefore, include all of
the features recited in the independent claim.
4
Appeal2018-005704
Application 14/619,717
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-14 and 21-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
5