Ex Parte Kolodziej et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

11592589 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 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.
11/592,589 11/03/2006 Jason R. Kolodziej GP-309060-FCAR-CHE 2798
65798 7590 05/25/2012
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
WOOD, JARED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1731
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2012 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 JASON R. KOLODZIEJ, DAVID A. ARTHUR,
SETH E. LERNER, and ABDULLAH B. ALP
____________

Appeal 2010-012019
Application 11/592,589
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2010-012019
Application 11/592,589

2
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA
(Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art2) in view of Fabis (U.S. 7,056,611 B2, issued Jun.
6, 2006), Scholta (U.S. 2004/0038092 A1, published Feb. 26, 2004) and Siemens
(SIMATIC 545/555/575 Programming Reference, Aug. 1998).3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
“Th[e] invention relates generally to a fuel cell system that employs a sub-
system for preventing a fuel cell stack from overheating and, more particularly, to
fuel cell system that employs an algorithm that limits the output power of a fuel
cell stack to prevent the temperature of the stack from going above a
predetermined value.” (Spec.4 [0001].) Claim 1 is representative of the invention
and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A system for limiting the current output from a fuel cell stack in
response to a temperature of the fuel cell stack, said system comprising:
a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the fuel cell stack;
an error circuit for generating an error signal as the difference between the
measured temperature of the fuel cell stack and a first predetermined temperature
value; and
a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller responsive to the error
signal, a bias value, a proportional gain value and an integral gain value, said PID

1 Final Office Action mailed Nov. 25, 2009.
2 Specification filed Nov. 3, 2006 (¶¶ [0007-0009], cited in Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 11, 2010 (“Ans”) 4).
3 Appeal Brief filed Mar. 9, 2010 (“App. Br.”).
4 Specification filed Nov. 3, 2006.
Appeal 2010-012019
Application 11/592,589

3
controller calculating a proportional gain component based on the error signal and
the proportional gain value and an integral gain component based on the error
signal and the integral gain value, and providing a maximum allowed current from
the fuel cell stack based on the bias value, the proportional gain component, and
the integral gain component.
In addition to claim 1, appealed claims 11 and 16 are also independent and
include a controller configured to provide a maximum allowed current
from the fuel cell stack. In claim 1, the controller provides the
maximum allowed current from the fuel cell stack based on the bias
value, the proportional gain component, and the integral gain
component. In claim 11, the maximum allowed current from the fuel
cell stack is the bias value minus the proportional gain component
minus the integral gain component. And finally, in claim 16, the
maximum allowed current from the fuel cell stack is determined based
on the size of the error signal.
(App. Br. 15.)
The AAPA establishes that at the time of the invention, it was known in the
fuel cell art to “employ a cooling fluid temperature monitoring sub-system that
monitors the temperature of the cooling fluid flowing out of the stack so as to
prevent the temperature of the stack from increasing above a predetermined
temperature” (Spec. [0007]). (Ans. 4.) This known system operated as follows: if
the temperature of the cooling fluid exceeded a certain value, the output current of
the stack was limited until the temperature of the cooling fluid returned, or fell
below, a maximum desired temperature. (Spec. [0009]; Ans. 4.) Stack output
current was determined by referencing a look-up table correlating stack output
current to cooling fluid temperature. (Id.)
Fabis evidences that at the time of Appellants’ invention, it was known in
the art to use a programmable logic controller (“PLC”) with built in proportional
integral differential (“PID”) control to control operational parameters of a fuel cell
Appeal 2010-012019
Application 11/592,589

4
system in order to maintain a stable operating temperature in the fuel cell. (Col. 4,
ll. 12-15 and 23-27; Ans. 4-5.) Fabis explicitly identifies the “Simatic™ 545
programmable logic controller” (col. 4, ll. 13-14) as a suitable controller for this
purpose. (Ans. 4-5.) The Examiner finds the Simatic™ 545 programmable logic
controller includes circuits (e.g., an error circuit, an enable circuit, a delay circuit
and a rate limiter circuit) by which it is capable of performing the functions recited
in appealed claims 1, 11, and 16.5 (See Ans. 4-5.)
Based on the above findings of fact, the Examiner concluded it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a PLC as taught by Fabis in
the AAPA system “in order to quickly adapt the fuel cell power to the respective
thermal requirement (Scholta et al. ¶ 3 of the abstract), and to maintain a stable
operating temperature in the fuel cell (Fabis, col. 5, l. 25).” (Ans. 5.)
Appellants do not dispute the above findings of fact with respect to the
AAPA. (See App. Br. 15-16.) Nor do Appellants dispute that a Simatic™ 545
programmable logic controller includes circuits which are capable of performing
the functions recited in appealed claims 1, 11, and 16. (See id. at 16-17; Rep. Br.
3-4.)
Appellants contend the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting the claims
because:
Fabis is concerned only with controlling the temperature of the inlet
air in an effort to control the temperature of the fuel stack. There is
simply no teaching or suggestion in Fabis to provide a maximum
allowed current from the fuel stack based on 1) the bias value, the
proportional gain component, and the integral gain component (claim

5 See Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Com'n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(noting courts have interpreted functional language in an apparatus claim as
requiring that the apparatus possess the capability of performing the recited
function).

Appeal 2010-012019
Application 11/592,589

5
1); 2) the bias value minus the proportional gain component minus the
integral gain component (claim 11); and 3) the size of the error signal
(claim 16).
(Id. at 17.)6
“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Both the AAPA and Fabis are directed to controlling the operating
temperature of a fuel cell stack. As correctly observed by Appellants (App. Br.
17), Fabis differs from the claimed invention in that Fabis utilizes a PLC to control
temperature of the inlet air to the fuel cell, rather than to control/limit current
output from the fuel cell stack. However, the AAPA evidences that it was known
in the art to control current output in response to deviations in cooling fluid from a
desired temperature. (See supra p. 3.)
Appellants have not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have (1) possessed the requisite skills to utilize a PLC such as the Simatic™ 545
programmable logic controller disclosed by Fabis to control maximum current
output from a fuel cell stack in response to deviations in measured temperature
from predetermined values, and (2) had a reasonable expectation of success in so
doing. Appellants have not persuasively demonstrated that the AAPA, if modified
to determine stack output current with a Simatic™ 545 programmable logic

6 Appellants further argue the Examiner has not identified a disclosure of a rate-
limiter circuit in Fabis, as required by appealed claim 11. (Id. at 18.) The
Examiner clearly found that Fabis’ PLC included this circuit. (Ans. 5, 8.)
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive of error on the part of the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-012019
Application 11/592,589

6
controller, rather than using a look-up table, would not have resulted in the
invention as claimed.
For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-20.
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).
AFFIRMED

tc