Ex Parte Roberge et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201610568721 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 10/568,721 0912612006 Guillaume Roberge 40582 7590 07/27/2016 American Air Liquide, Inc, Intellectual Property Department 9811 Katy Freeway Suite 100 Houston, TX 77024 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. Serie 6338 4862 EXAMINER Y ANCHUK, STEPHEN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2016 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): IP-USOffice@airliquide.com Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GUILLAUME ROBERGE, PIERRE CHARLAT, and THIERRY NOVET Appeal2014-009233 Application 10/568,721 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. uECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 15 and 17-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Representative claim 15 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated March 10, 2014 ("App. Br."). The limitations at issue are italicized. 15. A device for transferring water and heat between a first air flow and a second air flow, comprising a stack of at least two transfer Appeal2014-009233 Application 10/568,721 subassemblies having a lamellar configuration, each of said transfer subassemblies comprising: a first structure comprising channels for distributing the first air flow· ' a second structure comprising channels for distributing the second air flow; one macroporous hydrophilic layer; and two microporous hydrophilic layers, wherein said one macroporous hydrophilic layer is sandwiched between said two microporous hydrophilic layers to form a three-layer structure and said three-layer structure is sandwiched between said first and second structures. App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows: (1) claims 15, 17, 18, 20-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grasso et al. 1 in view of Mossman;2 (2) claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grasso in view of Mossman, and further in view of Goebel; 3 and (3) claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grasso in view of Mossman, and further in view of Richardson et al. 4 B. DISCUSSION Claim 15 recites "[a] device for transferring water and heat between a first air flow and a second air flow, comprising a stack of at least two transfer subassemblies having a lamellar configuration .... " App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). 1 US 2001/0004500 Al, published June 21, 2001 ("Grasso"). 2 US 2001/0046616 Al, published November 29, 2001 ("Mossman"). 3 US 2004/0170878 Al, published September 2, 2004 ("Goebel"). 4 US 2004/0265673 Al, published December 30, 2004 ("Richardson"). 2 Appeal2014-009233 Application 10/568,721 The Examiner finds Grasso discloses a fine pore enthalpy exchange barrier 12 for use in a fuel cell and finds the fine pore enthalpy exchange barrier corresponds to the claimed transfer subassembly. Final 2. 5 The Examiner does not find that Grasso discloses at least two transfer subassemblies as recited in claim 15.6 Nonetheless, we find Grasso expressly discloses that "a plurality of stacked fine pore enthalpy exchange barriers 12" may be used "as is common in the heat exchanger art, in order to enhance the efficiency of the [mass and heat transfer] device 92 depending upon performance characteristics and water recovery requirements of [fuel cell power] plant 10." Grasso i-f 42; see also Grasso i-f 51. Claim 15 also recites that each of the transfer subassemblies comprises, inter alia, "one macroporous hydrophilic layer; and two microporous hydrophilic layers, wherein said one macroporous hydrophilic layer is sandwiched between said two microporous hydrophilic layers to form a three-layer structure." App. Br. 13. The Examiner finds the fine pore enthalpy exchange barrier disclosed in Grasso is a support matrix that is hydrophilic and macroporous but finds Grasso does not disclose that the exchange barrier is sandwiched between two microporous layers as recited in claim 15. Final 2. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Mossman discloses a microporous membrane for use in a fuel cell system. The Examiner finds the microporous membrane "prevent[ s] a substantial transfer 5 Final Office Action dated September 5, 2013. 6 The preamble of claim 15 recites "[a] device for transferring water and heat between a first air flow and a second air flow." App. Br. 13. The Examiner reasons that "there would need to be a third and forth [sic, fourth] airflow pertaining to the second transfer subassembly, elements which are not claimed .... Applicant is encouraged to positively recite structural limitations that are pertinent to the invention in a manner which narrows the scope of the device." Final 6. If the Examiner is of the opinion that claim 15 is indefinite, we note the Examiner has not entered a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 3 Appeal2014-009233 Application 10/568,721 of oxygen depleted air as well as ... conserve[s] energy." Final 2 (citing Mossman i-f 33). Based on this finding, the Examiner concludes that adding the microporous membrane disclosed in Mossman to both sides of Grasso' s macroporous layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Final 2-3 (citing Mossman i-f 33). The Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner has pointed to no portion of Mossman or Grasso that discloses modification of top and bottom surfaces of a macroporous layer to provide such layers with a microporous morphology." App. Br. 9. In particular, the Appellants argue that Mossman discloses a single layer of microporous membrane material and "does not disclose any difference in porosity between the surfaces (bottom and top) and the middle." App. Br. 9. Therefore, the Appellants argue that Mossman does not suggest the modification proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 9; see also App. Br. 10 (questioning why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have simply substituted the Grasso membrane with the single layer ivfossman membrane). In response, the Examiner finds that "[ t ]he prior art teaches creating multiple layers wherein a layer is defined by a portion of the assembly which has different properties from an adjoining region." Ans. 3.7 The Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure in Grasso or Mossman to support that finding. Notably, we find the only embodiment in Grasso expressly describing "a multi-layer, dual pore-size configuration" is a fine pore enthalpy exchange barrier comprising "a central layer ... surrounded by opposed exterior layers and the exterior layers define pores having a larger pore-size range than pores defined by the central layer."8 Grasso 7 Examiner's Answer dated June 19, 2014. 8 We find this embodiment corresponds to the second embodiment described in Grasso paragraph 43. 4 Appeal2014-009233 Application 10/568,721 i-f 16 (emphasis added). This disclosure is in direct contrast to claim 15 reciting that "said one macroporous hydrophilic layer is sandwiched between said two microporous hydrophilic layers." App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). On this record, there would have been no reason to modify the fine pore enthalpy exchange barrier of Grasso with Mossman's microporous membrane, as proposed by the Examiner, absent the Appellants' disclosure. The Examiner's reliance on Goebel and Richardson in the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 19 and 26, respectively, does not cure this deficiency. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 15 and 17-27 are not sustained. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation