Ex Parte Koenekamp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2014

11368307 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2014)

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.
11/368,307 03/03/2006 Andreas Koenekamp GP-306492-FCA-CHE 6363
286 7590 02/21/2014
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
LEGAL STAFF
MAIL CODE 482-C23-B21
P O BOX 300
DETROIT, MI 48265-3000
EXAMINER
HAN, KWANG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2014 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 ANDREAS KOENEKAMP, REINER ESSINGER,
and FRANZ WINTER
________________

Appeal 2012-010597
Application 11/368,307
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010597
Application 11/368,307
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a fuel cell system. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A freeze capable compact fuel cell system to facilitate improved
humidification and removal of excess water and trapped nitrogen gas from
the fuel cell system, said fuel cell system comprising a plurality of fuel cells
arranged in a stack, said stack arranged to permit oxygen or an oxygen
containing gas to react with hydrogen or a hydrogen containing gas to
generate electricity and produce first exhaust gas containing residual oxygen
or residual oxygen and other gasses and second exhaust gas containing
residual hydrogen, or residual hydrogen and other gasses, said fuel cell
system comprising:
a) cathode inlet, cathode outlet, fluid connection between said cathode
inlet and said cathode outlet; said cathode fluid connection being a gas
passage and together with said cathode inlet and cathode outlet comprise a
cathode side of the fuel cell;
b) integrated anode inlet in fluid connection with integrated merged
anode outlet; said anode fluid connection being a gas passage and together
with said anode inlet and said merged anode outlet comprise an anode side
of said fuel cell system; said anode fluid connection separated from said
cathode fluid connection by a proton exchange membrane;
c) coolant inlet and coolant outlet in fluid connection with each other;
d) a water transfer device in fluid connection with said integrated
merged anode outlet, said water transfer device to receive water and other
gasses from said second exhaust gas and equipped with a water separation
membrane and fluid level indicator and further equipped with a first water
transfer fluid outlet at one end thereof and a second water transfer fluid
outlet at another end thereof;
e) an electronic control module to control the release of water from
said water transfer device;
f) a fluid conductor connected to said first outlet of said water transfer
device; said fluid conductor equipped with a bleed valve at a first end
thereof and a purge valve at a second end thereof; said bleed valve in fluid
connection with said fluid conductor between said cathode outlet and said
Appeal 2012-010597
Application 11/368,307
3
cathode inlet to permit the recirculation of water from the anode exhaust gas
to said cathode inlet;
g) a differential pressure sensor to sense the pressure in said fluid
conductor and send signals to said electronic control module, which controls
a flow rate of said bleed valve to vent trapped nitrogen gas to remove excess
nitrogen gas from the anode side of said fuel cell system;
h) said purge valve having a pressure sensor to sense the pressure of
the anode exhaust gas in said fluid conductor and send signals to said
electronic control module, which directs said purge valve to open and close
to vent excess anode exhaust gas from said fuel cell system;
i) a cathode humidity valve in fluid communication with said second
end of said water transfer device at a first end thereof, and in fluid
communication with the cathode inlet at a second end thereof, to permit the
flow of water from the water transfer device to the cathode inlet to humidify
said cathode inlet for humidification of said fuel cell stack.

The References
Watkins US 5,200,278 Apr. 6, 1993
Reiser US 6,312,842 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Komkova US 6,635,104 B2 Oct. 21, 2003
Kanai US 6,696,192 B2 Feb. 24, 2004
Shimonosono US 6,964,820 B2 Nov. 15, 2005
Arthur US 2007/0072020 A1 Mar. 29, 2007
(filed Sep. 29, 2005)
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
6 over Watkins in view of Kanai, Shimonosono, Reiser, and Arthur and
claim 7 over Watkins in view of Kanai, Shimonosono, Reiser, Arthur, and
Komkova.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
Claims 1-6
As stated in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011), “the
PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its
Appeal 2012-010597
Application 11/368,307
4
rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in ‘notify[ing] the applicant . . . [by]
stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement, together
with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.’ 35 U.S.C.
§ 132.” The Examiner has met that burden by pointing out which claim
limitations Watkins discloses and lacks and providing a plausible
explanation as to how the claim features lacking from Watkins would have
been fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, by the other applied
references (Ans. 5-10).
The Appellants do not address the Examiner’s explanation. The
Appellants argue that Watkins does not disclose an electronic control
module to control the release of water from a water transfer device (Br. 27),
but it is Kanai, not Watkins, upon which the Examiner relies for a disclosure
of an electronic control module (Ans. 6). The Appellants argue that Kanai
does not disclose a differential pressure sensor or a purge valve (Br. 27), but
it is Shimonosono upon which the Examiner relies for a disclosure of a
differential pressure sensor (Ans. 7) and Watkins upon which the Examiner
relies for a disclosure of a purge valve (Ans. 6). The Appellants argue that
Kanai does not disclose a cathode humidity valve (Br. 27), but the
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s reliance upon Kanai’s injector 17
or 126b as corresponding to the Appellants’ cathode humidity valve
(Ans. 6). The Appellants argue that Reiser does not disclose a bleed valve, a
purge valve having a pressure sensor, or a cathode humidity valve (Br. 27),
but it is Arthur, Watkins, and Kanai upon which the Examiner relies for a
disclosure of, respectively, a bleed valve, purge valve and cathode humidity
valve (Ans. 6-7). The Appellants argue that Arthur does not disclose a purge
valve having a pressure sensor or a cathode humidity valve (Br. 27), but the
Appeal 2012-010597
Application 11/368,307
5
Examiner relies upon Watkins and Kanai for a disclosure of, respectively, a
purge valve and a cathode humidity valve (Ans. 6-7).
The Appellants’ improper consideration of each reference in isolation
does not show error in the rejection based upon the combination of the
references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references”).
The Appellants do not specifically address the references with respect
to dependent claims 2-6 (Br. 31), let alone identify error in the Examiner’s
rationale in rejecting those claims (Ans. 8-9).
Claim 7
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, requires that “said water
separation membrane is comprised of a polymer of the monomers poly
sulfonic acid and poly [perfluorosulfonic] acid.”
Komkova discloses a water vapor separation membrane comprising
interwoven first and second polymers, wherein the second polymer can be
poly(styrene sulfonic acid) (abstract; col. 8, ll. 1-4).
The Examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a poly (sulfonic
acid) material for a water separation membrane because Komkova teaches
this material forms an effective device for the separation of water vapor
from a gas stream” (Ans. 10).
The Appellants point out that “Komkova et al. ’104 lacks a freeze
capable compact fuel cell system, wherein the water separation membrane is
comprised of a polymer of the monomers poly sulfonic acid and poly
[perfluorosulfonic] acid” (Br. 36), but the Appellants do not argue that
Appeal 2012-010597
Application 11/368,307
6
Komkova would have failed to render a water separation membrane
comprised of a polymer of the monomers polysulfonic acid and
polyperfluorosulfonic acid prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. The Appellants argue that “[t]he references fail to teach or suggest the
combination of a freeze capable compact fuel cell system to facilitate
improved humidification and removal of excess water and trapped nitrogen
gas from the fuel cell system of dependent claim 7” (Br. 39), but it is the
combination of Watkins, Kanai, Shimonosono, Reiser and Arthur, not
Komkova, upon which the Examiner relies to meet that claim requirement
(Ans. 5-9).
Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 7.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-6 over Watkins in
view of Kanai, Shimonosono, Reiser, and Arthur and claim 7 over Watkins
in view of Kanai, Shimonosono, Reiser, Arthur and Komkova are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED

cdc