Ex Parte Gottwick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10961556 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
10/961,556 10/08/2004 Ulrich Gottwick 3124 5842
7590 03/28/2013
STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY
103 EAST NECK ROAD
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
EXAMINER
TRAN, BINH Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2013 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 ULRICH GOTTWICK and RAINER SALIGER
____________________

Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ulrich Gottwick and Rainer Saliger (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, and 7-
13. App. Br. 2. Claims 2 and 6 have been cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A vehicle, comprising a combustion
arrangement formed as a motor selected from the
group consisting of a gasoline motor and a diesel
motor; a waste gas device associated with said
combustion arrangement for withdrawal of a waste
gas stream, said waste gas device having at least
one precipitating unit for precipitation of water
from the waste gas stream; at least one fuel cell
device comprising a fuel cell unit for producing
electrical energy and a reformer; and at least one
connecting device provided between said
precipitating unit and said fuel cell unit for
connecting said precipitating unit to said fuel cell
unit and supplying precipitated water of said
precipitating unit to said fuel cell unit.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Erdle (US 6,833,206 B2; iss. Dec. 21, 2004) and Smith
(US 3,672,341; iss. Jun. 27, 1972).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Erdle, Smith, and Preis (US 6,931,841 B2; iss. Aug. 23, 2005).
Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556

3
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Erdle, Smith, and Jagtoyen (US 6,581,375 B2; iss. Jun.
24, 2003).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10 – Erdle and Smith
The Examiner found Erdle discloses a vehicle comprising at least one
precipitating unit for precipitating water from a waste gas stream, and at
least one fuel cell device comprising a fuel cell unit 10 and a “reformer (9).”
Ans. 3 (citing Erdle, col. 3, l. 50; figs. 1, 2; see also col. 2, ll. 41-46).
The Examiner construed the claim term “reformer”:
From Figure 1 of the specification, the
device with numeral “4” is shown to receive water
from the ion exchange (9) and to produce a fuel
flow (16) which is then directed to the anode (5a)
of the fuel cell (14). Thus, based on the above
disclosure, the reformer (4) in the pending
application is at best defined as a gas generating
device that receives water as an input and
generates a gas (fuel flow) as an output which is
then fed to a fuel cell system.
Ans. 7-8.
Appellants contend that “Erdle discloses an electrolyzer 9, which is
NOT a reformer.” App. Br. 4. Appellants also contend that “Erdle
specifically discloses in paragraph [0041] that no reformer must be provided
in the fuel cell system. Therefore, Erdle actually teaches away from the
Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556

4
present invention by specifically excluding the use of a reformer in their fuel
system.” Id.1 This paragraph of Erdle states, in pertinent part:
It is preferred that a fuel cell 10 used in the
power supply according to the invention is
composed of fuel cell stacks without external
humidification needs. The power supply needs no
external fuelling, i.e. is independent of whatever
fuel the vehicle 1 is running on and is of compact
and simple system design. No fuel processor is
needed. The system shows high dynamics features
with an extremely short start-up time since no
bulky system components have to be heated up as
compared to regular fuel cell systems with a
reformer for reforming hydrocarbons or alcohol or
the like.
See Erdle, col. 5, ll. 53-67 (emphasis added).2 We understand Appellants’
essential contention is that because Erdle compares its system to other
systems that have a reformer, Erdle’s system does not have a reformer, and
therefore the electrolyzer 9 is not a reformer. As the Examiner determined
that Erdle’s electrolyzer 9 corresponds to the claimed “reformer,” Appellants
disagree with the Examiner’s construction of this term.
The Patent and Trademark Office gives claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading the claim
language as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants do not direct us to a specific definition of the term “reformer.”

1 We understand that Appellants are referring to paragraph [0041] of the
prior published application (US 2003/0064260 A1, published April 3, 2003)
of Erdle. This paragraph corresponds to column 5, lines 53-67 of Erdle.
2 Appellants also refer to “an excerpt from Wikipedia” in support of their
position. App. Br. 4-5. However, a copy of this excerpt is not included in
the record and so we are unable to consider it.
Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556

5
See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (An applicant is
permitted to define specific terms used to describe the invention by setting
forth a definition for terms with reasonable clarity, deliberateness and
precision.) We note, however, that Appellants’ Specification provides
guidance as to the meaning of the term “reformer.”
Particularly, Appellants’ Specification states:
The water 12 which is recovered by the
precipitator 3 is supplied by a withdrawal conduit
or an optionally provided pump 8a to a fuel cell
system 13. . . . In the variant shown in Figure 1 a
gas generating device 4 is provided, which is
formed in particular as a reformer.
See Spec. 20, ll. 5-9; fig. 1 (emphasis added). Figure 1 shows pump 8a
connected to a water container 7, pump 8, and ion exchanger 9, arranged in
this order. See Spec. 20, ll. 13-18. The water stored in the water container 7
is supplied by pump 8 to the ion exchanger 9. Id. The ion exchanger 9 is
shown connected to the reformer 4. See also Spec. 21, ll. 14-16 (emphasis
added).
The Specification states that “[t]he fuel cell 14 is operated with air and
with a water containing fuel stream 16 produced by the reformer 4.” Spec.
20, ll. 10-11 (emphasis added). The Specification also describes “the
reforming of hydrocarbons in combination with a fuel cell.” See Spec. 2, l.
13 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Specification states:
[T]he connection device can be arranged between
the precipitating unit and a conversion unit for
chemical conversion of a fuel into a combustion
substance of the fuel cell unit. Conventional
conversion units or reformers frequently require
water for their objectionable operation, which is
Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556

6
made available by means of the inventive
precipitator.
Spec. 10, ll. 5-9 (emphasis added). In view of this disclosure, we understand
that the claimed “reformer” is a device that reforms hydrocarbon fuel by
chemical conversion.
Erdle provides evidence as to the meaning of the term “reformer” as
used in the art of vehicles including a fuel cell device and a combustion
engine, that is, the same field as that of the claimed subject matter. As noted
supra, Erdle describes “a reformer for reforming hydrocarbons or alcohol or
the like.” Erdle’s use of the term “reformer” appears to be consistent with
Appellants’ use of the term.
Erdle describes that the electrolyzer 9 delivers hydrogen and/or
oxygen to the fuel cell 10, and operating as an electrolyzer to decompose
water to hydrogen and oxygen. See Erdle, col. 2, ll. 41-44, col. 3, ll. 5-6.
The Examiner did not identify any disclosure in Erdle that the electrolyzer 9
provides chemical conversion of hydrocarbon fuel.
The Examiner stated:
Appellant further relies on the Wikipedia as a
secondary consideration which defines a
“reformer” as a device that converts, extracts, or
reforms a hydrocarbon fuel into higher octane
molecules and hydrogen. This secondary
consideration is moot because it is contradictory to
the Appellant’s own design and mode of operation
of a “reformer” since water, instead of a
hydrocarbon fuel, is fed to the reformer.
Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556

7
Ans. 10.3 While Figure 1 of Appellants’ application shows a connection
between ion exchanger 9 and the reformer 4, indicating that water can be
supplied to the reformer 4, the Examiner did not provide any support for the
finding that the function of reformer 4 is “reforming or converting a water
fuel into a hydrogen fuel.” Id. As noted supra, the reformer 4 produces a
water-containing fuel stream. The supply of water to the reformer 4 via the
ion exchanger 9 is consistent with the disclosure that “reformers frequently
require water for their objectionable operation, which is made available by
means of the inventive precipitator.” The supply of water to the reformer 4
does not, however, establish that Erdle’s electrolyzer 9, which receives and
converts water to hydrogen and oxygen, is a “reformer,” as claimed.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
its dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 10.

Rejection of claims 9 and 13 – Erdle, Smith, and Preis
Claims 9 and 13 depend from claim 1. The Examiner’s application of
Preis for the rejection of claims 9 and 13 (Ans. 5-6) does not cure the
deficiencies of the Examiner’s reliance on Erdle and Smith for the rejection
of claim 1, as discussed supra. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 9 and 13.

3 The Examiner found that a “reformer” is referred to in Wikipedia
according to the “relevant phrases”: “Catalytic reformer, a unit in an oil
refinery that reforms lighter hydrocarbons into higher octane molecules and
hydrogen,” and “Hydrogen reformer, a device that extracts hydrogen from
other fuels, typically methanol or gasoline.” Ans. 8.
Appeal 2011-001926
Application 10/961,556

8
Rejection of claims 11 and 12 – Erdle, Smith, and Jagtoyen
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 1. The Examiner’s application
of Jagtoyen for the rejection of claims 11 and 12 does not cure the
deficiencies of the Examiner’s reliance on Erdle and Smith for the rejection
of claim 1. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12.

DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, and 7-13 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls