Ex Parte Fagley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

11130804 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

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.
11/130,804 05/17/2005 John C. Fagley GP-304710 2783
7590 08/01/2012
Cary W. Brooks
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff, Mail Code 482-C23-B21
P.O. Box 300
Detroit, MI 48265-3000
EXAMINER
MARTIN, ANGELA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOHN C. FAGLEY and MANISH SINHA
________________

Appeal 2011-007264
Application 11/130,804
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007264
Application 11/130,804

2
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3,1 7, and 8 of Application
11/130,804 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and further rejected claim 6
as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants seek reversal of these
rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
Background
The ’804 application is directed to methods for operating a fuel cell
system. Spec. ¶ [0001]. In particular, the ’804 application describes and
claims control strategies for achieving and maintaining a particular relative
humidity profile for high current density fuel cell stack operation. Id.
One common type of fuel cell is the Proton Exchange Membrane
(“PEM”) fuel cell. Id. at ¶ [0002]. PEM fuel cells consist of stacks of
Membrane-Electrode Assemblies (“MEAs”). Id. Each MEA is comprised of
a proton-exchange membrane having an anode on one face and a cathode on
the opposite face. Id. The MEA is sandwiched between a pair of electrically
conductive contact elements which serve as current collectors for the anode
and cathode and which may contain channels and openings for distributing
the fuel cell’s gaseous reactants over the surfaces of the anode and cathode.
Id. Because the generation of current also produces heat, at least one surface
of each MEA is cooled by a liquid coolant that also flows through the
current collecting plates. Id. ¶ [0003].
For proper operation and long operational life, the MEAs must be
maintained in the appropriate humidified state. Id. ¶ [0004]. The method of

1 The final rejections of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) have been
withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2011-007264
Application 11/130,804

3
the ’804 application maintains the proper relative humidity in the fuel cell by
adjusting the coolant flow rate through the fuel cell so that the temperature
change across the coolant flow path from the inlet to the outlet is
substantially constant. Id. ¶ [0006].
Claim 1 of the ’804 application is representative and is reproduced
below:
1. A method of operating a fuel cell system including a fuel
cell stack and a coolant supply subsystem, the fuel cell stack
having cathode and coolant flow paths therethrough, the
method comprising:
(a) operating the fuel cell stack to produce electricity;
(b) monitoring a power level of the fuel cell stack;
(c) determining a coolant flow through the coolant
flow path to substantially achieve a predetermined
coolant temperature change through the coolant flow path
based on said power level; and
(d) adjusting operation of the coolant supply
subsystem to substantially achieve said determined
coolant flow.
App. Br. 17.
Rejections
1. The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3, 7, and 8 as anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent Application Publication
2005/0227125 A1 (“Shaffer,” Oct. 13, 2005).
2. The Examiner finally rejected claim 6 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Shaffer.
Appeal 2011-007264
Application 11/130,804

4
Discussion
Rejection 1. Under § 102(b), a reference is anticipatory when it
discloses each and every element of the claimed invention, whether it does
so explicitly or inherently. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
We agree with Appellants that Shaffer does not describe several of the
limitations of the ’804 application’s claims. In particular, Shaffer does not
describe at least the following limitations of claim 1: (1) “determining a
coolant flow through the coolant flow path to substantially achieve a
predetermined coolant temperature change through the coolant flow path
based on said power level,” and (2) “adjusting operation of the coolant
supply subsystem to substantially achieve said determined coolant flow.”
We have reviewed the portions of Shaffer cited by the Examiner as
describing these claim limitations and find that the Examiner has not, in fact,
established that these portions of Shaffer describe the claimed limitations.
For example, the Examiner cited paragraphs 29 and 32 of Shaffer’s
specification along with Figure 3 as teaching the step of “determining a
coolant flow through the coolant flow path to substantially achieve a
predetermined coolant temperature change through the coolant flow path
based on said power level.” Ans. 4. In fact, neither these nor any other
portions of Shaffer describe monitoring the coolant input and output
temperatures for the purpose of maintaining a constant temperature change
across the coolant flow path. The cited portions of Shaffer’s specification
describe observed changes in various parameters of a prior art fuel cell stack
during a downward transient in power demand, Shaffer ¶ [0029] and Fig. 3,
and Shaffer’s method of using excess power produced by the fuel cell stack
Appeal 2011-007264
Application 11/130,804

5
during such a transient in order to reduce the negative effects of the transient
on various parameters observed in the fuel cell, id. at ¶ [0032]. The
Examiner simply has not adequately explained the basis for the finding that
Shaffer describes this claim limitation.
Similarly, the portion of Shaffer’s specification cited by the Examiner
as describing the “adjusting operation of the coolant supply subsystem to
substantially achieve said determined coolant flow” does not, in fact, contain
such a description. The Examiner cited paragraph 25 of Shaffer as
containing this description. Ans. 4. This portion of Shaffer merely describes
the structure of the coolant system used in Shaffer’s fuel supply apparatus.
Shaffer, ¶ [0025]. Nowhere in the cited paragraph does Shaffer describe
changing the operation of the coolant subsystem to maintain a predetermined
coolant temperature change across the coolant flowpath. Those portions of
Shaffer that do describe changing the operation of the coolant subsystem,
e.g., id. at ¶¶ [0032]-[0033], describe changes made to consume excess
power produced by the fuel cell stack without regard to the coolant
temperature change. Again, the Examiner simply has not adequately
explained the basis for the finding that Shaffer describes this claim
limitation.
Furthermore, we have reviewed the portions of Shaffer that the
Examiner alleges describe the limitations of claims 2 and 3. We find that
these neither these portions nor any other part of Shaffer describe the
limitations in these claims. Claims 7 and 8 are not anticipated for the reasons
discussed in connection with claim 1.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-3, 7, and 8 of the ’804 application as anticipated by Shaffer.
Appeal 2011-007264
Application 11/130,804

6
Rejection 2. Obviousness is a legal conclusion based upon underlying
factual determinations. In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
These underlying factual determinations include: (1) the level of ordinary
skill in the art, (2) the scope and content of the prior art, (3) the differences
between the claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) any objective indicia
of nonobviousness that may be present. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all of its limitations.
Claim 6 adds the limitation that the coolant flow is provided “as pulses of
flow through the coolant flow path when said power level is below a
predetermined threshold.” App. Br. 18.
For the reasons set forth above, Shaffer does not teach or suggest
several of the elements of the invention of claim 1 and therefore does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 6. Furthermore, we
agree with Appellants that Shaffer also does not teach or suggest the
limitation added by dependent claim 6. Indeed, Shaffer describes a system in
which coolant flow is arguably pulsed when the power level provided by the
fuel cell stack is above the power demand placed upon the stack. This is the
opposite of the claim’s requirement. The Examiner has not established that
the method of claim 6 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 of the ’804 application as obvious
over Shaffer cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-3, 7, and 8 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appeal 2011-007264
Application 11/130,804

7
We also cannot sustain the rejection of claim 6 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED

tc