Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2012

10542642 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/542,642 07/19/2005 Ho-Suk Kim 08015.0023 1718
22852 7590 08/27/2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
DAVIS, PATRICIA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2012 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 HO-SUK KIM, MEE-NAM SHINN,
BYUNG-SUN HONG, SUNG-JIN OH,
SHEOL-NAM YANG, and YONG-JUNG SEO
____________

Appeal 2011-003022
Application 10/542,642
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003022
Application 10/542,642

2
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-10. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A sealing structure for polymer electrolyte fuel cell
having a membrane electrode assembly, the sealing structure
comprising:
a bipolar plate including a sealing groove and an anchor
groove coupled to a periphery of the sealing groove, the sealing
groove surrounding at least one of a reaction site or a manifold
formed on the bipolar plate, the anchor groove extending
toward an outer edge of the bipolar plate, and a width of the
anchor groove being greater than a width of the sealing groove;
a sealing member formed of rubber and positioned in the
sealing groove and the anchor groove; and
a gasket plate interposed between the bipolar plate and
the membrane electrode assembly, wherein the sealing member
is formed by drying liquid rubber, the liquid rubber filling in
the sealing groove by controlling a dispenser to start from the
anchor groove and finish in the anchor groove by way of the
sealing groove.
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1) claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Schilling
(US 6,338,492 B1 issued Jan. 15, 2002);
2) claim 7 as unpatentable over Schilling with Sasaki
(US 6,337,120 B1 issued Jan. 8, 2002); and
3) claim 8 as unpatentable over Schilling and Sakumoto
Appeal 2011-003022
Application 10/542,642

3
(US 2002/0106954 A1 published Aug. 8, 2002).

ANALYSIS
After consideration of the record before us, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not shown where the prior art teaches or suggests the
use of a gasket plate interposed between the bipolar plate and the membrane
electrode with a sealing member formed in a sealing groove of the bipolar
plate as recited in the overall sealing structure of claim 1 (e.g., App. Br. 16-
21).
This issue turns on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
language of “a gasket plate”. Appellants contend that the plugs 15 of
Shilling relied upon by the Examiner to satisfy the claimed gasket plate
limitation are not a gasket plate, but are merely extensions of the sealing
element 10 of Shilling (e.g., id. at 10, 11). In contrast, Appellants explain
that, as shown in Figure 4, their invention includes a gasket plate 200 which
is interposed between a bipolar plate 100 (having a sealing member within a
sealing groove) and a membrane electrode assembly 300 (e.g., id. at 10;
Reply Br. 3, 4; Spec. 10-12; see also Spec. 3:3-5 (explaining that a gasket of
“silicon sheet or Teflon sheet strengthened by glass fibers is often used”)).
Appellants’ Specification exemplifies that the gaskets 200, 200’ of the
invention are each in the form of a flat, thin shape which is consistent with
the ordinary meaning of the term plate, and is similar to the shape of the
bipolar plate (e.g., Spec. 10:19 to 11:8; Figs. 4, 5; Reply Br. 3).
We therefore determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellants’ Specification of “gasket plate” in claim 1 means
a flat, thin shape, similar to the shape of the bipolar plate. See In re Am.
Appeal 2011-003022
Application 10/542,642

4
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of
the claims in patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the
claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.’” (Internal citation omitted.))
The Examiner has not directed our attention to any evidence or
provided any persuasive line of technical reasoning that one of ordinary skill
in the art would consider the plugs 15 of Shilling as “a gasket plate” or even
suggestive of the claimed feature in dispute (see generally Ans.).
The Examiner does not rely upon any other references to remedy this
deficiency (see also App. Br. 5). Under these circumstances, we reverse all
of the § 103 rejections on appeal.
DECISION
We reverse the § 103 rejections of all the claims on
appeal.

REVERSED

bar