Ex Parte Bhandari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13075954 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/075,954 03/30/2011
65798 7590 03/31/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ashish Bhandari
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.
P010917-FCA-CHE 2692
EXAMINER
VO, JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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 ASHISH BHANDARI and
BALASUBRAMANIA LAKSHMANAN
Appeal2014-005938
Application 13/075,954
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to a method for removing
contaminants from a fuel cell stack by exposing the anode and cathode of the
stack to an air purge, then exposing the anode and cathode to a water flush
and then again exposing the cathode to an air purge (Spec. i-f 13).
Appeal2014-005938
Application 13/075,954
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative:
1. A method for removing contaminants from a fuel cell stack,
said method comprising:
purging a cathode side and an anode side of the fuel cell stack with
air;
flushing the cathode side and the anode side of the fuel cell stack with
water after the cathode and the anode side of the fuel cell stack have been
purged with air; and
purging the cathode side and the anode side of the fuel cell stack with
air to dry the stack after the cathode side and the anode side of the fuel cell
stack have been flushed with water.
2. The method according to claim 1 further comprising removing
the fuel cell stack from a vehicle before the fuel cell stack is purged with air.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4---6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Oko (US 2001/0049033 Al published Dec. 6, 2001) in
view of Yu (US 2006/0046106 Al published Mar. 2, 2006).
2. Claims 2, 3, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oko in view of Yu and Furs (US 5,371,935 issued
Dec. 13, 1994).
With regard to rejections (1) and (2), Appellants' arguments focus on the
subject matter of claims 1 and 2, respectively (App. Br. 6-11 ).
Accordingly, claims 3-12 will stand or fall with our analysis of the
rejection of claims 1 and 2.
2
Appeal2014-005938
Application 13/075,954
FTI'-JDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
REJECTION (1 ): Claim 1
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Oko and Yu with
regard to claim 1 are located on pages 2 to 3 of the Answer.
Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Oko and Yu fail to
teach or suggest a method including the steps of purging the anode and
cathode with air, flushing the anode and cathode with water, and purging the
anode and cathode a second time with air (App. Br. 7). Appellants contend
that Yu purges the anode and cathode first with hydrogen followed by a
purge with air, while Oko teaches first flushing with water followed by
performing multiple flushing and purge steps with gases and solutions (App.
Br. 7, 9). Appellants contend that Oko and Yu do not provide a suggestion
to combine the references to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 (App. Br.
9).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner's combination of
Oko and Yu in the rejection is based upon the teachings of the references.
Oko discloses performing an initial water flushing step to determine what
contaminants are present in the fuel cell (Oko i-f 63). Based upon the
determination of which contaminants are present, "flush gasses and solutions
are used to remove the contaminants." Id. The gases used to flush the fuel
cells may include strong oxidants (Oko i-f 57). Oko discloses that between
each removal substance flush, the stack is flushed with water to clear out the
previous flush substance (i-f 64). Yu teaches that it is known to use air as a
purge gas to remove water from a fuel cell to prevent freezing and damage
to the fuel cell (i-fi-f 4, 17). Yu further teaches that air is considered an
oxidant (i-f 4).
3
Appeal2014-005938
Application 13/075,954
Based on the teachings of Oko and Yu, the steps of using water and
air to decontaminant a fuel cell were known in the art. Oko teaches that the
steps of the decontamination process may be performed repetitively to
remove contaminants (i-f 64). Accordingly, the teachings of the prior art
would have suggested decontaminating a fuel cell by using an air purging
step followed by a water flushing step followed by an air purging step. The
repetition and alternating of known fuel cell decontaminating steps appear to
be nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements (i.e., air purge,
water flush) according to their established functions (i.e., decontaminating a
fuel cell). KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 417 (2007). Yu
discloses the importance of the last step being an air purge step to remove
any residual water in the fuel cell that may freeze. Appellants do not allege
any unexpected results from the particular ordering of the steps.
Appellants argue that Oko's teaching to flush with water initially
teaches away from the claimed invention that includes a first air purge step
(App. Br. 8). However, the claims use the open-ended transitional claim
language "comprising" that does not exclude an initial water flush step as
recited in Oko.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection over Oko in
view of Yu.
REJECTION (2): Claim 2
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine Furs with
Oko as suggested by the Examiner (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that Furs
is directed to removing a fuel cell from an aircraft if the fuel cell experiences
projectile damage such as from gunfire. Id.
4
Appeal2014-005938
Application 13/075,954
The Examiner, however, relies on Furs for the general teaching that
removing fuel cell from a vehicle helps with the ability to maintain the
vehicle by permitting ex situ repair of the fuel cell (Furs col. 1, 11. 39--47).
Furs shows the desirability of being able to repair a fuel cell after removing
it from the vehicle. The Examiner's reason for the combination (i.e., to
facilitate maintainability of the vehicle) is not conclusory but is based upon
Furs' teachings.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection over Oko in
view of Yu and Furs.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5