Ex Parte Gemba et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201712681004 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/681,004 03/31/2010 Miho Gemba 061352-0315 1224 53080 7590 02/21/2017 McDermott Will and Emery LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 EXAMINER AMPONSAH, OSEI K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2017 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): mweipdocket @ mwe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIHO GEMBA and YOICHIRO TSUJI Appeal 2016-001848 Application 12/681,0041 Technology Center 1700 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, BRIAN D. RANGE, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal 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 Appellants, the real party in interest is Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-001848 Application 12/681,004 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the invention as relating to a configuration of a fuel cell stack. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations and some spacing added for readability, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A fuel cell comprising: an electrolyte-layer-electrode assembly including an electrolyte layer and a pair of electrodes sandwiching the electrolyte layer, the pair of electrodes including a first gas diffusion layer and a second gas diffusion layer; a first separator which has a plate shape and is electrically conductive, the first separator being disposed to contact the electrolyte-layer-electrode assembly and being provided with a first groove-shaped reactant gas channel on an inner surface thereof which contacts one of the electrodes; a second separator which has a plate shape and is electrically conductive, the second separator being disposed to contact the electrolyte-layer-electrode assembly and being provided with a second groove-shaped reactant gas channel on an inner surface thereof which contacts the other electrode; and one or more gas permeation suppressing sections for suppressing a gas from flowing, in a stacking direction of the electrolyte-layer-electrode assembly, the first separator and the second separator, to at least one of the electrodes, wherein: each of the inner surface of the first separator and the inner surface of the second separator has a region (hereinafter referred to as a first region) including at least a portion where the first reactant gas channel extending from its upstream end contacts one of the electrodes first when viewed in a thickness direction of the first separator, and a region (hereinafter referred to as a second region) including at least a portion where the second reactant gas channel extending from its upstream end contacts the other electrode first when viewed in the thickness direction of the first separator, 2 Appeal 2016-001848 Application 12/681,004 the gas permeation suppressing section is disposed on at least one of the first reactant gas channel and the second reactant gas channel so as to overlap with the first region when viewed in the thickness direction of the first separator, the gas permeation suppressing section is disposed on at least one of the first reactant gas channel and the second reactant gas channel so as to overlap with the second region when viewed in the thickness direction of the first separator, the gas permeation suppressing section has a through hole extending in the stacking direction, a surface of the gas permeation suppressing section, on which an opening of the through hole is disposed, is in contact with at least one of the first and second gas diffusion layers, a gas diffusion from the first groove-shaped reactant gas channel in the first region to the first gas diffusion layer is lower than a gas diffusion from the first groove shaped reactant gas channel in a portion other than the first region to the first gas diffusion layer, and a gas diffusion from the second groove-shaped reactant gas channel in the second region to the second gas diffusion layer is lower than a gas diffusion from the second groove-shaped reactant gas channel in a portion other than the second region to the second gas diffusion layer. Appeal Br.2 10-11 (Claims App’x). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Jones et al. US 6,528,198 B1 Mar. 4,2003 2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed January 2, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 1, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 6, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed December 1, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appeal 2016-001848 Application 12/681,004 (hereinafter “Jones”) Hatohetal. US 6,884,536 B1 Apr. 26,2005 (hereinafter “Hatoh”) Sugitaetal. US 2007/0020504 A1 Jan. 25,2007 (hereinafter “Sugita”) REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection 1. Claims 1—15 and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jones in view of Sugita. Rejection 2. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jones in view of Sugita and further in view of Hatoh. ANALYSIS Appellants’ arguments present a focused question on appeal: do Jones and Sugita teach or suggest a surface of the gas permeation suppressing section in contact with a gas diffusion layer? Appeal Br. 5—8. The Examiner finds that bridge or cover plate 128 as depicted in Figure 3 of Jones corresponds to claim 1 ’s recited gas permeation suppressing section. Final Act. 3^4. The cover plate has injection ports 131. The Examiner’s annotated Figure 3 of Jones is reproduced below: 4 Appeal 2016-001848 Application 12/681,004 Fia s Figure 3 of Jones depicts a cutaway side view of multiple fluid flow plates in a stacked fuel cell. Jones 4:47—51. In the annotated figure above, the Examiner has labeled the bridge or cover plate 128 and injection ports 131. The Examiner finds that Jones teaches gas diffusion layer that is not shown in Figure 3 but is, according to Jones, “positioned between active areas of the PEM and the fluid flow plate.”3 Jones 6:20—23; Final Act. 4. The Examiner then relies on teachings from Sugita to find that the plate 128 extends out so that it overlaps and contacts the gas diffusion layer. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds, “in figure 3 the bridge plate [128] extends past the metering area into an ‘active area’ where the membrane or PEM4 [136 and 138] is located.” Ans. 11. These findings culminate in the Examiner’s finding that a surface of the bridge (cover) plate [128] on which the through hole is disposed would be in contact with the modified gas 3 “[F]luid flow plate” in this passage refers to fuel cell fluid flow plate 120 of Figure 3. Jones 5:28—29. 4 PEM can stand for proton exchange membrane or polymer electrolyte membrane. Jones 1:20—32. 5 Appeal 2016-001848 Application 12/681,004 diffusion layer (see figure 3 of Jones wherein the bridge plate [128] extends past the metering area into an ‘active area’ where the membrane or PEM [136 and 138] is located). Id. at 12 (emphasis added, brackets original).5 The Examiner errs because, in Jones Figure 3, only structure 138 is the PEM. Jones 6:15—17. PEM 138 is surrounded by gasket 136. Id.\ see also Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2—3. Jones teaches that, “[i]n a typical PEM- type fuel cell, the PEM is sandwiched between ‘anode’ and ‘cathode’ gas diffusion layers (not shown). . . .” Jones 5:14—18. A preponderance of the evidence thus suggests that, at most, gas diffusion layers would be located between PEM 138 and gasket 136. It would not make sense for gasket 136 to be located between PEM 138 and the diffusion layers. See Reply Br. 2 (“In order for the electrochemical reaction to take place, not only a PEM but also gas diffusion layers for carrying the reaction gases (cathode gas and anode gas) into the PEM are required).”); Ans. 13 (“the membrane electrode assembly includes a solid polymer electrolyte membrane interposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the electrode (anode or cathode) has an electrode catalyst layer formed on a gas diffusion layer”). Therefore, even if the Examiner is correct that bridge plate 128 extends to the left of input orifice 132 in Jones Figure 3, plate 128 would still only contact gasket 136 rather than contacting PEM 138 or the diffusion layers that might sandwich PEM 138. Reply Br. 2-3. 5 Appellants’ Appeal Brief primarily focuses on whether Jones teaches diffusion layers touching bridge plate 128 in metering area 130. Appeal Br. 5—8. The Answer clarifies the Examiner’s position, and Appellants appropriately responded to this clarification in the Reply Brief. 6 Appeal 2016-001848 Application 12/681,004 Because the Examiner has not adequately explained why the combination of Jones and Sugita renders obvious claim 1 ’s recitation of “a surface of the gas permeation section, on which an opening of the through hole is disposed, is in contact with at least one of the first and second gas diffusion layers,” we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—15, and 17—20 because those claims depend from claim 1. Claim 16 also depends from claim 1, and the Examiner’s use of the Hatoh reference in rejecting claim 16 does not cure the error addressed above. Final Act. 9. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation