Ex Parte Elhamid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11127478 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/127,478 05/12/2005 Mahmoud H. Abd Elhamid GP-305805 6223
83938 7590 04/29/2013
Brooks Kushman P.C.
1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
ENIN-OKUT, EDU E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2013 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 MAHMOUD H. ABD ELHAMID, FENG ZHONG,
RICHARD H. BLUNK, YOUSSEF M. MIKHAIL, GAYATRI VYAS,
DANIEL J. LISI, MICHAEL K. BUDINSKI, GERALD W. FLY,
TIMOTHY J. FULLER, BRIAN K. BRADY, and KEITH E. NEWMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-000057
Application 11/127,478
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000057
Application 11/127,478

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
through 12, 20 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is directed to an electrically conductive fluid
distribution plate. App. Br. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
1. An electrically conductive fluid distribution plate
comprising:
a plate body defining a set of fluid flow channels
configured to distribute flow of a fluid across at least one side
of the plate, the plate body including a metallic sheet and a
composite polymeric conductive coating, the polymeric
conductive coating including electrically-conductive filler
dispersed throughout a polymeric matrix and being oxidation
resistant and acid-resistant protective; and
a polymeric porous conductive layer proximate to the
plate body, the porous conductive layer having a porosity
sufficient to result in a water contact angle of the surface of less
than 40°, wherein the polymeric porous conductive layer is
different than the composite polymeric conductive coating.
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Sassa US 5,891,402 Apr. 6, 1999
Suenaga US 2002/0034670 A1 Mar. 21, 2002
Saito US 2002/0034672 A1 Mar. 21, 2002
Nishida US 6,660,419 B1 Dec. 9, 2003

Appellants (App. Br. 4), request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s final office action:
Appeal 2012-000057
Application 11/127,478

3
I. Claims 1-11, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Saito and Nishida.
II. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saito, Nishida and Sassa.

OPINION
The dispositive issue for these rejections on appeal is: Did the
Examiner err in determining that the combination of Saito and Nishida
would have led one skilled in the art to an electrically conductive fluid
distribution plate comprising a polymeric conductive coating including
electrically-conductive filler dispersed throughout a polymeric matrix
as required by the subject matter of independent claims 1, 20 and 21? 1,2
After thorough review of the respective positions provided by
Appellants and the Examiner, we REVERSE for the reasons presented by
Appellants and add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner found that Saito discloses an electrically conductive
fluid distribution plate comprising a base material coated with a conductive
layer made of a noble metal and a porous polymeric conductive coating film
having a porosity sufficient to result in a water contact angle of the surface
of 15o, 20o, and 30o. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also found that Saito does not
disclose the noble metal coating being a composite polymeric conductive
coating that is oxidation-resistant and acid-resistant protective. Id. at 5. The
Examiner found that Nishida teaches it was known to coat a fuel cell

1 We will limit our initial discussion to independent claim 1. Claims argued
separately will be addressed.
2 A discussion of Sassa is unnecessary for disposition of the present appeal.
The Examiner relied upon this reference for features not related to the
dispositive issue.
Appeal 2012-000057
Application 11/127,478

4
separator plate having a metal base with a conductive coating made from a
mixture of a polymeric water repellent material and a corrosion-resistant
metal, such as gold, that provides a conductive coating that is oxidation
resistant and chemically inactive, and has good conductivity. Id. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
to use Nishida’s conductive coating in place of Saito’s noble metal coating
on the separator metallic base material for the benefits provided by Nishida’s
coating. Id. at 5-6.
Appellants argue that Nishida discloses a conductive layer that is an
inorganic layer or a metal layer with polymeric particles disposed therein
and fails to disclose an electrically-conductive filler dispersed throughout a
polymeric matrix and being oxidation-resistant and acid-resistant protective
as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. App. Br. 6-8.
We agree. As noted by the Appellants, Nishida discloses using a coat
of a conductive inorganic compound and a metal-plated coat containing
particles of a water repellent material. Id. at 7. As also noted by Appellants,
There is no disclosure in Nishida of a polymeric conductive coating that
includes an electrically-conductive filler dispersed throughout a polymeric
matrix as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. Id. at 7-8.
While the Examiner contends that Nishida’s Examples using plating
baths to make a conductive film have a water repellent material content
higher than the conductive particle content (Ans. 12-13), the Examiner has
not adequately explained why the resulting conductive coating from these
baths constitutes a polymeric conductive coating including electrically-
conductive filler dispersed throughout a polymeric matrix. The Examiner
does not direct us to any section of Nishida that supports the contention that
Appeal 2012-000057
Application 11/127,478

5
Nishida discloses a polymeric conductive coating including electrically-
conductive filler dispersed throughout a polymeric matrix.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-11, 20 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saito and Nishida and of
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saito, Nishida and
Sassa for the reasons given above and presented by the Appellants.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-11, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Saito and Nishida is reversed.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Saito, Nishida and Sassa is reversed.

REVERSED

tc