Ex Parte Gottwick et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

10738063 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 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.
10/738,063 12/17/2003 Ulrich Gottwick 2840 8506
7590 08/31/2012
STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY
103 East Neck Road
Huntington, NY 11743
EXAMINER
MURALIDAR, RICHARD V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2012 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 ULRICH GOTTWICK, RAINER SALIGER,
and JAN-MICHAEL GRAEHN
_____________

Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRYAN F. MOORE, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-9 and 19-28. Claims 10-18 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

2
INVENTION

The invention is directed “to a fuel cell apparatus with a fuel
cell unit, a first electronic control unit, and a starting device.” Spec. 2.

Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A fuel cell apparatus, comprising a fuel cell unit;
a first electronic control unit for producing an electrical control
signal for controlling said fuel cell unit; at least one starting
device for starting said first electronic control unit and formed
as a second electronic control unit which produces an electrical
input signal of said first electronic control unit and which
receives a further electrical signal, which further electrical
signal is provided for starting of said second electronic control
unit and derived from independent electrical starting signals
including an ignition lock position signal, an additional
charging a battery signal, and at least one additional signal, the
at least one additional signal selected from a group consisting
of at least one of: a door contacts signal, a seat contacts signal,
an unblocking of a drive-off lock signal, an unlocking of a door
signal, a brake light switch signal, a brake pedal actuation
signal, and a starter signal, said second electronic control unit
having an electronic evaluating unit formed to compare said
independent electrical starting signals so that said first electrical
control unit and thereby the fuel cell apparatus is started only
when said independent electrical signals are provided.

REFERENCES
Azuma US 5,631,532 May 20, 1997
Lorenz US 5,794,732 Aug. 18, 1998
Wilson US 6,147,418 Nov. 14, 2000

Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

3
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Azuma and Lorenz. (Ans. 5). Claims
2-9 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Azuma, Lorenz, and Wilson. (Ans. 7)

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that:
1. Lorenz teaches or suggests “a further electrical signal, which further
electrical signal is provided for starting of said second electronic
control unit and derived from independent electrical starting signals
including an ignition lock position signal, an additional charging a
battery signal, and at least one additional signal”? (Independent claim
1.)
2. Azuma teaches or suggests “compar[ing] said independent electrical
starting signals so that said first electrical control unit and thereby the
fuel cell apparatus is started only when said independent electrical
signals are provided.” (Independent claim 1)
3. Azuma and Lorenz are combinable.

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Claim 1 recites “a further electrical signal, which further electrical
signal is provided for starting of said second electronic control unit and
derived from independent electrical starting signals including an ignition
lock position signal, an additional charging a battery signal, and at least one
Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

4
additional signal [.]” Appellants assert that the “additional signal [taught by
Lorenz] is not supplied, together with the ignition lock position signal and
the additional charging of battery signal, to the input of the second electronic
control unit, which in turn provides an electrical input signal for the first
electronic control unit, which in turn controls the fuel cell unit.” (Br. 12).
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lorenz and
Azuma teach or suggest the above limitation in claim 1. (Ans. 9-10). We
find that Lorenz teaches or suggests a door contacts signal and seat contacts
signal. (Lorenz 8:64-67). Claim 1 recites that the additional signal can be a
door contacts signal or seat contacts signal. As a result of the combination
of Lorenz and Azuma, the additional signal of Lorenz passes control of the
ignition to the ignition and starting switch 13 of Azuma. (Ans. 16.) This
combination is reasonable because Lorenz’s start methodology first checks
for the door contacts signal or the seat contacts signal which initiates a safety
interrogation sequence that, when completed successfully, releases the
started circuit. (Lorenz Fig. 2, step 20, col. 2 ll. 61-67 and col. 3 ll. 1-7).
Based on this textual portion in Azuma, we agree with the Examiner that one
of ordinary skill in the art of fuel cell vehicles would have understood that
the additional signal in Lorenz allows the ignition of the fuel cell vehicle and
would be passed to the ignition circuit in a combination with Azuma. (See
Ans. 16.)
In Azuma, the ignition switch ON signal is passed to the electronic
vehicle control unit 70 of Azuma which is then supplied to the fuel cell
control device 6 which starts the fuel cell system 3. (Azuma Fig. 10). Based
on this textual portion in Azuma, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art of fuel cell vehicles would have understood that the
Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

5
ignition signal passes to a second control unit which them passes to a first
control unit. (See Ans. 16.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Lorenz and Azuma teaches or suggests “a further electrical
signal, which further electrical signal is provided for starting of said second
electronic control unit and derived from independent electrical starting
signals including an ignition lock position signal, an additional charging a
battery signal, and at least one additional signal [,]” as recited in independent
claim 1.
Issue 2
Claim 1 further recites “compar[ing] said independent electrical
starting signals so that said first electrical control unit and thereby the fuel
cell apparatus is started only when said independent electrical signals are
provided.” Appellants assert that “[t]he patent to Azuma also does not
disclose a comparison of the electrical starting signals which include not
only the ignition lock position signal and the additional charging battery
signal, but also the above mentioned at least one additional signal from the
group of the above-mentioned signals.” (Br. 11) (emphasis in original). We
note that Claim 1 specifically recites that the comparison is done and
“thereby the fuel cell apparatus is started only when said independent
electrical signals are provided.” (Claim 1). Thus, a comparison of the
independent electrical starting signals with each other is not contemplated
but rather a comparison check to see if the signals are present. For this
reason, the Examiner concludes that the phrase “to compare said
independent electrical starting signals” (claim 1 lines 13-14) can be
construed to mean “check for the presence of said independent electrical
Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

6
starting signals, or check the signals against some threshold value.” (Ans.
15). We agree with the Examiner and adopt this construction.
Given the above construction, we find that one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would recognize that the combination of
Azuma and Lorenz compares the independent electrical signals. For
example, as noted above, Lorenz’s start methodology first checks for the
door contacts signal or the seat contacts signal before allowing ignition of
the vehicle. (Lorenz Fig. 2, step 20, col. 2, ll. 61-67 and col. 3, ll. 1-7).
Azuma discloses checking for the presence of an IGNITION switch being
ON in column 5, lines 27-35. Similarly, Azuma discloses the checking the
additional charging battery signal Q1. Azuma col. 5, ll. 46-63; col. 6, ll. 1-
50. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lorenz and
Azuma teaches or suggests “compar[ing] said independent electrical starting
signals so that said first electrical control unit and thereby the fuel cell
apparatus is started only when said independent electrical signals are
provided.”
Issue 3
Appellants argue there is no motivation to combine the references for
two reasons: 1) “the additional signal selected from the group of the above
specified signals can be easily supplied by a person skilled in the art not to
the second electronic control unit, but instead to the first electronic control
unit that would be completely contrary to the basic idea of the applicant's
invention[;]” (Br. 13) and 2) “[t]he references have to be modified in a very
special way which was not proposed in the references and which was
invented by the inventors of the present invention.” (Br. 13-14).
Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

7
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As to the first argument,
Azuma’s Fig. 10 shows control unit 70 is designed to accept externally
entered signals (70 receives inputs from external devices 12 and 13), while
control unit 6 is only designed to accept signals from another control unit
(control unit 6 only accepts signals from control unit 70). Thus, one of skill
in the art would be motivated to provide Lorenz’s additional signal to
Azuma's “second control unit” 70, instead of Azuma's “first control unit” 6.
See Ans. 19. As to the second argument, as mentioned above Azuma
suggests combining the references in exactly the “very special way” cited by
Appellant because it contemplates that the second control unit only accepts
external signals and the first control unit accepts signals from the second
control unit. Id.
Finally, we note that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead, the
relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that
“[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception
of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on
the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued
patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead,
the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated
Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

8
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Examiner provided the following rationale for combining the
references:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to add Lorenz's method of starting a
fuel cell system via a safety interrogation sequence, to Azuma's
existing fuel cell system for the explicitly stated benefit of
increasing safety for users and preventing risk to the
environment through escaping hydrogen gas and damage to the
fuel cells through overloading [col. 1 lines 39-59].

(Ans. 18). Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
suggestion for modifying Azuma with Lorenz suffices as an articulated
reason with some rational underpinning to justify the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we also discern no Examiner error in rejecting claim 1
over Azuma and Lorenz. We also discern no Examiner error in rejecting
claims 2-9 and 19-28, which were not separately argued and thus stand or
fall with claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 19, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Azuma and Lorenz is affirmed. The
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9 and 20-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Azuma, Lorenz, and Wilson is affirmed.
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) (2010).

Appeal 2010-003036
Application 10/738,063

9
AFFIRMED

ELD