Ex Parte Wake et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 10, 201611563895 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111563,895 11128/2006 Chihiro WAKE 38834 7590 11/15/2016 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP 1250 CONNECTICUT A VENUE, NW SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 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. 063346 1690 EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2016 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): patentmail@whda.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHIHIRO WAKE and KOICHIRO MIYATA Appeal2015-005973 Application 11/563,895 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 8-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. Appeal2015-005973 Application 11/563,895 Appellants' appealed invention is illustrated by independent claim 8, reproduced below: 8. A start up control method for a fuel cell operated for power generation consuming a fuel gas supplied to an anode and an oxygen-containing gas supplied to a cathode and receiving a start up signal for starting operation of said fuel cell and a stop signal for stopping operation of said fuel cell, the start up control method comprising the steps of: determining that the fuel gas at said anode has been replaced by a scavenging gas; and prohibiting the start up of said fuel cell before the fuel gas at said anode has been replaced by the scavenging gas, when the start up signal is received during scavenging of said anode being performed in response to the stop signal. Appellants request review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goebel (US 2005/0221148 Al, published October 6, 2005), Inai et al. (US 2005/0136297 Al, published June 23, 2005) ("Inai") and Meredith et al. (US 2004/0146755 Al, published July 29, 2004) ("Meredith"). See Appeal Brief, generally. OPINION Prior Art Rejection 1 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 8- 14 for the reasons presented by Appellants. We add the following. 1 We limit our discussion to independent claim 8. 2 Appeal2015-005973 Application 11/563,895 Independent claim 8 is directed to a start up control method to prepare a fuel cell for the start of the next operation of the fuel cell which includes a scavenging step for an anode of the fuel cell system. Spec. 1-2. The method of claim 8 specifically requires a step of prohibiting the start up of said fuel cell before the fuel gas at said anode has been replaced by the scavenging gas when a start up is attempted once the scavenging of the anode is initiated in response to the stop signal. Id. at 6, 30-31. We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a statement of the rejection. Final Act. 2-5. 2 Appellants argue the Examiner has not established that it would have been obvious to incorporate a determining and prohibiting step into the fuel cell system of Goebel in light of the teachings of Inai because Inai does not recognize a relationship between water discharge and fuel gas being replaced with scavenging gas. App. Br. 4--5. According to Appellants, Inai' s pressure sensors 41 and 61 are used to determine if the discharge of remaining water has been completed and not to determine that the fuel gas at the anode has been replaced by a scavenging gas as claimed. App. Br. 5; Inai i-f 72. That is, Appellants argue Inai uses the pressure sensors 41, 61 to determine whether or not any remaining water in the anode has been discharged, a step that has nothing to do with whether the fuel gas is completely replaced with the scavenging gas. App. Br. 5. 2 A discussion of Meredith is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal. According to the Examiner's Final Action, the relevance of Meredith hinges on the appropriateness of the combination of Goebel and Inai in rendering obvious the incorporation of a prohibiting step as claimed based on the disclosure of Inai. Final Act. 3-5. 3 Appeal2015-005973 Application 11/563,895 We agree with Appellants. The Examiner found Goebel teaches a process of purging residual hydrogen from a fuel cell's anode at any time of a fuel cell system's operation, such as startup, to inhibit the formation of high voltage potential that could damage the fuel cell. Final Act. 2-3; Goebel Abstract, i-f 26. The Examiner found Goebel does not disclose the determining and prohibiting steps recited in claim 8. Final Act. 3. To overcome this difference, the Examiner relied on Inai as disclosing a fuel cell scavenging method using pressure sensors at the inlet and outlet of an anode to determine if the water discharge from the anode has been completed. Final Act. 3; Ans. 11; Inai Figure 2, i-fi-124, 69-72. The Examiner found that the pressure sensors inherently determine that the fuel gas has been replaced by a scavenging gas. Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner, one skilled in the art would have modified the fuel cell scavenging method of Goebel to incorporate the claimed determining and prohibiting steps in view of Inai's disclosure. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner directs us to no portion of Inai that equates Inai' s pressure measurements for determining the water discharge status to the status of the fuel gas in the anode. In addition, the Examiner has not provided an adequate technical explanation of why Inai's water discharge determination is necessarily a determination that the fuel gas in Inai' s fuel cell has been replaced by a scavenging gas. Thus, the Examiner has not adequately explained how one skilled in the art would have modified Goebel's fuel cell scavenging method to include the claimed determining and prohibiting steps. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has met the minimum threshold of establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 4 Appeal2015-005973 Application 11/563,895 § 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); KSR Int? Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,988(Fed.C~.2006D. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. ORDER The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 8-14 reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation