Ex Parte Elhamid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2014

11127374 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/127,374 05/12/2005 Mahmoud H. Abd Elhamid GP-305656 (GMCE 0153
PUS)
5374
83938 7590 03/14/2014
Brooks Kushman P.C.
1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2014 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,
YOUSSEF M. MIKHAIL, DANIEL J. LISI,
RICHARD H. BLUNK, GAYATRI VYAS,
MICHAEL K. BUDINSKI, GERALD W. FLY,
TIMOTHY J. FULLER, and BRIAN K. BRADY
____________

Appeal 2012-010802
Application 11/127,374
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 3, 5-9, 11, and 20-
25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 20 is illustrative:
20. A fuel cell comprising:
a first electrically conductive fluid distribution plate comprising a
plate body, the plate body including:
a first sheet having a first exterior side, a first interior side, and a first
plurality of flow channels, the first plurality of flow channels being disposed
on the first exterior side;
Appeal 2012-010802
Application 11/127,374

2
a second sheet having a second exterior side, a second interior side,
and a second plurality of flow channels, the second plurality of flow
channels being disposed on the second exterior side, the first exterior side
and the second exterior side defining an exterior surface and the first interior
side contacting the second interior side wherein a portion of the first interior
side and a portion of the second interior side each has a surface roughness at
regions of contact;
a second electrically conductive fluid distribution plate; and
a member electrode assembly separating the first electrically
conductive fluid distribution plate and the second electrically conductive
fluid distribution plate, the membrane electrode assembly comprising:
an electrolyte membrane, having a first side and a second side, an
anode adjacent to the first side of the electrolyte membrane; and
a cathode adjacent to the second side of the electrolyte membrane.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Neutzler U.S. 5,776,624 Jul. 7, 1998
Fly U.S. 2002/0114990 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Takao U.S. 2002/0160248 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Vyas U.S. 2003/0228512 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
Rock U.S. 2004/0209150 A1 Oct. 21, 2004
Tanno U.S. 2005/0130022 A1 Jun. 16, 2005

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a fuel cell comprising,
inter alia, a first electrically conductive fluid distribution plate. The plate
includes first and second sheets having first and second interior and exterior
sides, respectively. The first interior side of the first sheet contacts the
second interior side of the second sheet, and the first and second interior
sides have a surface roughness at the regions of contact.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 3, 9, 20, 21, 22, and 24 over Neutzler in view of Takao,
Appeal 2012-010802
Application 11/127,374

3
(b) claims 5, 6, and 11 over Neutzler in view of Takao and Fly,
(c) claims 7, 23, and 25 over Neutzler in view of Takao and Tanno,
(d) claim 8 over Neutzler in view of Takao and Vyas, and
(e) claims 3, 9, 20, 21, 22, and 24 over Rock in view of Takao.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Also, Appellants do not present separate, substantive arguments
for the Examiner's separate § 103 rejections of the dependent claims.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 20.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's legal conclusion that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the
Takao disclosure, to modify the bipolar plates of Neutzler and Rock such
that the first and second interior sides have the claimed surface roughness.
The principal argument advanced by Appellants is that none of the applied
references teaches or suggests a fluid distribution plate wherein the interior
sides of the first and second sheets would contact each other. Appellants
clarify their position in the Reply Brief that Figure 5 of Neutzler, cited by
the Examiner, "makes it clear that the substrate metal is coated with a
Appeal 2012-010802
Application 11/127,374

4
cladding or coating [and] it is an impossibility that the roughened metal
surfaces contact each other" (Reply Br.2, last para.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Although the first and
second interior sides of Neutzler are provided with a cladding or coating, the
cladding or coating constitutes the interior sides of the first and second
sheets. Appealed claim 20, as drafted, does not preclude the presence of a
cladding or coating on the interior sides of the first and second sheets.
As for the § 103 rejection over Rock in view of Takao, Appellants
merely state that the Office Action completely fails to address the claim
limitation regarding the first and second interior sides of the first and second
sheets. However, Appellants fail to present a substantive argument against
the Examiner's factual findings set forth at pages 9-12 of the Answer, as well
as at pages 14-15 of the "Response" section of the Answer. In addition,
Appellants' Reply Brief makes no mention of the rejection over Rock in
view of Takao, let alone present an argument against the Examiner's findings
and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Consequently, the Examiner's
rejection over Rock in view of Takao stands unrebutted.
As a final point, we note that Appellants based no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-010802
Application 11/127,374

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam