Ex Parte Blunk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2016

13014484 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/014,484 01/26/2011
83938 7590 10/17/2016
Brooks Kushman P.C.
1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard H. Blunk
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.
P010385-FCA-CHE 1692
EXAMINER
THOMAS, BRENT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD H. BLUNK
Appeal2015-004936
Application 13/014,484
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BRIAND. RANGE, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is GM Global
Technology Operations LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004936
Application 13/014,484
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as relating to forming a
silicon oxide/titanium oxide bilayer hydrophilic coating on a fuel cell flow
field plate. Spec. Abstract. Appellant indicates that this coating shows
improvements as compared to a bilayer comprising silicon oxide and a
Kemira C-442 copolymer. Spec. i-f 26. Claim 1, reproduced below with
emphases added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for coating a fuel cell component having a
bilayer comprising:
a) contacting the fuel cell component with a titanium
oxide-containing liquid to form a titanium oxide-containing
layer adhered to the fuel cell component; and
b) contacting the fuel cell component with a silicon
oxide-containing liquid to form a silicon oxide coating adhered
to the titanium oxide-containing layer.
Appeal Br.2 Appendix 1 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Angelopoulos et al., US 2007/0141238
Al, June 21, 2007 (hereinafter, "Angelopoulos") in view of Abd Elhamid et
al., US 2009/0092874 Al, April 9, 2009 (hereinafter, "Abd Elhamid").
Ans. 2.
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed June 3, 2014
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed November 3, 2014 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed January 29, 2015 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief
filed March 30, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-004936
Application 13/014,484
ANALYSIS
Three independent claims are at issue on appeal. Independent claims
1 and 14 each recite formation of "a titanium oxide-containing layer" and
formation of "a silicon oxide coating adhered to the titanium oxide-
containing layer." Appeal Br. Appendix 1, 2. Similarly, independent claim
18 recites a "bilayer comprising a titanium oxide-containing layer and a
silicon oxide-containing layer." Id. at 3.
The Examiner rejects all claims at issue as obvious over Angelopoulos
in view of Abd Elhamid. Angelopoulos discloses a fuel cell component with
a bilayer where the first layer is a polymer used for adhesion. Ans. 2;
Appeal Br. 4; Angelopoulos i-f 3, 21. The Examiner finds that
Angelopoulos's second layer is a silicon oxide containing layer. Ans. 2.
The Examiner finds that Angelopoulos does not explicitly teach that the first
liquid and first layer contain titanium dioxide. Id. The Examiner, however,
finds that Angelopoulos teaches that the second layer may contain inorganic
nanoparticles and that this indicates that the polyelectrolyte layer (i.e., the
first layer) is "compatible with nanoparticles." Id. at 7. The Examiner thus
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to add the titanium oxide nanoparticles of Abed
Elhamid to the first layer of Angelopoulos "to increase the hydrophilic
properties." Id. 2, 7. 3
3 In the Examiner's original rejection, it was not clear whether the Examiner
was proposing substituting Angelopoulos' s first layer with titanium oxide or
adding titanium oxide to that first layer. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
clarified this point in the Answer. Ans. 7. We will thus consider
Appellant's Reply Brief arguments concerning addition of the titanium
oxide. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41.
3
Appeal2015-004936
Application 13/014,484
The weight of the evidence does not support the Examiner's
conclusion. Rather, the evidence supports Appellant's argument that neither
Angelopoulos nor Abd Elamid teach that addition of titanium oxide would
improve hydrophilic properties of Angelopoulos's polymer layer. Reply
Br. 2. Instead, Angelopoulos discloses use of nanoparticles in its "second
coating" layer, and Angelopoulos relies on the second coating layer as
providing hydrophilic properties. Reply Br. 3. For example, Angelopoulos
states that "the second coating material may include ... a hydrophilic or a
hydrophobic material." Angelopoulos i-f 21; see also id. at i-fi-122, 25.
Meanwhile, Abd Elhamid suggests that titanium oxide has stability
advantages over silicon oxide and does not suggest using a combination of
titanium oxide and silicon oxide layers. Appeal Br. 4--5; Abd Elhamid i-f 10.
Although the Examiner is correct that Abd Elhamid teaches the hydrophilic
properties of titanium oxide (Ans. 2; Abd Elhamid i-f 14), the Examiner has
not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that this benefit would apply when titanium oxide is added to a
polymer layer or why Angelopoulos would benefit from its polymer layer
(i.e., the first layer) being more hydrophilic.
Indeed, even if the combination of Angelopoulos and Abd Elhamid
fairly suggest use of titanium oxide as or as part of a second coating layer,
this does not establish the two layers required by each independent claim.
The Examiner relies on the second coating layer as being the silicon-oxide
containing layer of the independent claims. Ans. 2. Absent a persuasive
rationale to add titanium oxide to Angelopoulos's polymeric layer (i.e., the
first layer), the present record does not adequately establish that a person of
ordinary skill would have been inclined to employ a silicon oxide layer and a
4
Appeal2015-004936
Application 13/014,484
titanium oxide layer as required by each of the independent claims at issue
(claims 1, 14, 18). We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-2 0.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-20.
REVERSED
5