Ex Parte Hilmi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 2010

10755483 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ABDELKADER HILMI
and CHAO-YI YUH
__________

Appeal 2009-005144
Application 10/755,483
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005144
Application 10/755,483

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claims 29, 30, and 34-37. Claims 1-28 and 31-33 are also
pending but have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a molten carbonate fuel
cell. Claim 29, the only independent claim on appeal, is illustrative.
29. A molten carbonate fuel cell comprising:
an anode;
a cathode;
an electrolyte situated between said cathode and anode;
and
wherein said cathode comprises a porous cathode body
having an outer surface; and a coating on the cathode body
comprised of mixed oxygen ion conductor materials, said
coating being disposed over the entire outer surface of said
cathode body and in the pores in said cathode body, and said
coating having a thickness of less than about 1µm.

App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).2 See Appellants’ Fig. 1
(depicting film 5 disposed over the entire outer surface of the cathode body).
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us on appeal:
(1) Claims 29, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Nickols3 and Pham.4
(2) Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Nickols, Pham, and Chiba.5

2 Appeal Brief dated June 27, 2007.
3 US 4,297,419 issued October 27, 1981.
4 US 2002/0127456 A1 published September 12, 2002.
5 JP 2002-352808 published December 6, 2002.
2
Appeal 2009-005144
Application 10/755,483

B. ISSUE
Has the Examiner demonstrated that the claimed coating which is
“disposed over the entire outer surface of said cathode body” would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art of
record?
C. ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Nickols discloses a fuel cell comprising an
anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte situated between the anode and cathode.
The Examiner found that Nickols discloses that the cathode body is coated
with a ceria admix. Ans. 3.6
The Appellants argue that the coating disclosed in Nickols is not
disposed over the entire outer surface of the cathode body as recited in claim
29. See, e.g., App. Br. 8, 10, 20. The Examiner recognizes as much. See
Ans. 5 (indicating that Nickols coats one side of the cathode body).
On this record, the Examiner has failed to explain why it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the entire outer
surface of the Nickols cathode body in view of the prior art of record.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the § 103(a) rejections on appeal.
D. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

tc

6 Examiner’s Answer dated August 31, 2007.
3
Appeal 2009-005144
Application 10/755,483

COWAN LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C
JOHN J TORRENTE
1133 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036
4