Ex Parte Beutel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2010

10755128 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MATTHEW J. BEUTEL, LEE C. WHITEHEAD,
JEFFREY A. ROCK, and MICHAEL D. CARTWRIGHT
____________________

Appeal 2009-013937
Application 10/755,128
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Decided: April 28, 2010
____________________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-17, 20-22, 24, and 26-29.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2009-013937
Application 10/755,128

2
Claim 27 is illustrative of the subject matter of the claimed invention:
27. A bipolar plate for use in a fuel cell stack,
comprising:
a first plate having a first coolant face with a first set of
coolant channels and a first set of lands arranged in a first
zigzag pattern to provide a first planar flow field at a first
elevation, said first zigzag pattern having a first zig leg and a
first zag leg wherein said first zig leg and said first zag leg are
non-parallely orientated; and
a second plate having a second coolant face with a
second set of coolant channels and a second set of lands
arranged in a second zigzag pattern to provide a second planar
flow field at a second elevation diverse from said first
elevation, said second zigzag pattern having a second zig leg
and a second zag leg wherein said second zig leg and said
second zag leg are non-parallely orientated, said second coolant
face confronting said first coolant face such that said first and
second coolant channels cross one another at an acute resultant
angle to define an intermittent interface areas formed adjacent
said first and second sets of coolant channels and intermittent
cross-linked area providing fluid communication between said
first and second planar flow fields.
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
First Named Inventor Document No. Issue or Pub. Date
Marianowski US 6,261,710 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
Wilkinson
Enami1
US 2001/0041281 A1
JP 10-308227 A
Nov. 15, 2001
Nov. 17, 1998

The Examiner maintains, and Appellants seek review of, the
following rejections:

1 We reference the English language translation prepared by FLS, Inc.
(PTO 09-6821, July 2009) and made of record August 12, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013937
Application 10/755,128

3
1. The rejection of claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-17, 20-22, 24, and 26-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Enami in view of
Wilkinson;
2. The rejection of claims 6, 14, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Enami in view of Wilkinson and Marianowski.
II. DISPOSITIVE ISSUE
The issue raised by the contentions of Appellants and the Examiner is:
Did the Examiner provide a sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified the separators of Enami to obtain confronting
coolant faces with coolant channels that form a zigzag pattern and cross one
another at an acute resultant angle, as required by claim 27, based on the
teachings of Wilkinson? We answer this question in the negative.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Enami teaches a bipolar separator for a fuel cell stack that includes two
separator plates, in which indentations in an upper surface of the first
plate form first reactant channels, such as for reactant fuel; facing
indentations on the lower surface of the first plate and on the upper
surface of the second plate form multi-level coolant channels; and
indentations on the lower surface of the second plate form second
reaction channels, such as for oxidant gas (Enami, ¶ [0008]; Figures
1 and 5).
2. The plates have a cross-sectional wave shape in which recessed parts and
projecting parts alternate. In other words, the indentations of the upper
surface of the plates are the inverse of the indentations of the lower
surface of the plates. (Enami, ¶ [0008]; Figure 1.)
Appeal 2009-013937
Application 10/755,128

4
3. The channels formed on both the first and second plates are linear and
parallel, and the first plate is positioned at a 90º angle with respect to the
second plate (Enami, ¶ [0010]; Figure 1).
4. Wilkinson teaches a flow field configuration for a single-sided flow field
plate which delivers a reactant directly to the surface of a diffusion layer
supported by the landings of the flow field configuration (Wilkinson, ¶¶
[0014] and [0028]-[0029]; Figure 1).
5. Wilkinson teaches that the channels of the flow field are generally
sinusoidally shaped and have multiple cross connections, such that the
lands appear as posts (Wilkinson, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018] and [0034]; Figures
2a-2e).
6. Wilkinson teaches that the channel design allows for improved support to
the diffusion layer adjacent the sinusoidal channels of the plate over
linear reagent channels (Wilkinson, ¶¶ [0016] and [0033]-[0034]).
Wilkinson also teaches that the cross connections minimize the effect of
channel blockages, such as by water reaction products, within a reaction
channel (Wilkinson, ¶¶ [0018]).
IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Rejections based on § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis with these
facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
V. ANALYSIS
The Examiner states that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the claimed invention was made to modify the straight
channels of Enami with the interconnected channels of
Wilkinson to improve the flow distribution by reducing the
Appeal 2009-013937
Application 10/755,128

5
effects of channel blockage and also improving the support of
the distribution layers.
(Ans. 4.) The Examiner also further reasons that “Wilkinson teaches that the
sinusoidal pattern is an improved flow field providing better support than the
straight channels and minimizes the effect of channel blockage by water”
(Ans. 8)(citing Wilkinson, ¶¶ [0016]-[0018]).
Appellants contend, among other things, that the Examiner’s stated
reasons ignore that Wilkinson is directed to channels used for reactant gases
only, not a coolant, and, as such, the problems solved by the channel design
(avoiding water blockages and diffusion layer support) are directed only
towards reactant channel problems, not coolant channel problems (Reply Br.
3).
We reverse for the reasons identified by Appellants. We agree that
the Examiner has not provided sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have modified the separators of Enami to use the channel
pattern of Wilkinson for a coolant channel, particularly since Wilkinson is
directed to a single-sided channel plate for a reactant gas. The Examiner has
not shown how the problems overcome by the teachings of Wilkinson,
which are directed to problems in a reactant channel, would have been
applicable to the coolant channel taught by Enami.
Accordingly, there is a reversible error in the Examiner’s reasoning
for combining the teachings of Enami and Wilkinson.
The Examiner applied the teachings of Enami and Wilkinson in the
same way for each of the independent and dependent claims. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain any of the Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2009-013937
Application 10/755,128

6
VI. CONCLUSION
On the record before us and for the reasons discussed above, we
cannot sustain the rejections maintained by the Examiner.
VII. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
REVERSED

cam

HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48303