Ex Parte Mueller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

12746705 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121746,705 06/07/2010
34044 7590 08/16/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ulrich Mueller
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
022862-9140 1706
EXAMINER
TRPISOVSKY, JOSEPH F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRICH MUELLER, FRANK POPLOW,
MARKUS SCHUBERT, JAN-MICHAEL GRAEHN,
WERNER GRUENWALD, and IAN FA YE
Appeal2014-009548
Application 12/746,705 1
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
14 and 22-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he invention relates to a method for
regulating the withdrawal of gas from a sorption reservoir as well as a device
for storing at least one gas." Spec. i-f 2.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009548
Application 12/746,705
CLAHvIS
Claims 14 and 22-33 are rejected and on appeal. Claim 14 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
14. A method for regulating a withdrawal of gas from a
sorption reservoir comprising the step of: as a gas content in the
sorption reservoir decreases, increasing temperature in the
sorption reservoir until a maximum permissible temperature is
reached, while maintaining pressure in the sorption reservoir
above a predetermined minimum pressure.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimada. 2
2. The Examiner rejects claims 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shimada in view of Gross. 3
3. The Examiner rejects claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Shimada in view of Kubo. 4
4. The Examiner rejects claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shimada in view of Gross and Kubo.
DISCUSSION
With respect to the rejection over Shimada, Appellants group all of
claims 14 and 22-33 together. See App. Br. 7-8. We select claim 14 as
representative of this group.
With respect to claim 14, the Examiner finds that Shimada discloses a
method as claimed except that Shimada "does not explicitly teach increasing
2 Shimada et al., US 2002/0045079 Al, pub. Apr. 18, 2002.
3 Gross, US 2006/0051638 Al, pub. Mar. 9, 2006.
4 Kubo et al., EP 1826051 Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2007.
2
Appeal2014-009548
Application 12/746,705
the temperature of the sorption reservoir while maintaining pressure in the
sorption reservoir above a predetermined minimum pressure." Final Act. 2.
With respect to this claim requirement, the Examiner finds:
Id.
Shimada does teach that as the temperature of the
hydrogen occluding alloy decreases during the release of
hydrogen, the hydrogen occluding ally [sic] must be heated to
ensure that the dissociation pressure does not fall below the
minimum release pressure so that hydrogen can be released from
the alloy (paragraph 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify the method of Shimada to maintain a pressure in
the sorption tank above a predetermined minimum pressure to
ensure hydrogen can be supplied to the hydrogen-using
apparatus.
Appellants argue:
Shimada fails to teach or suggest at least "as a gas content
in the sorption reservoir decreases, increasing temperature in the
sorption reservoir until a maximum permissible temperature is
reached, while maintaining pressure in the sorption reservoir
above a predetermined minimum pressure." As is discussed
above, Shimada uses a hydrogen occluding alloy. Hydrogen is
not stored as a gas in a hydrogen occluding alloy. These alloys
are typically metal hydrides, such as MgH2, NaAlH4, LiAlH4,
LiH, LaNi5H6, TiFeH2 and palladium hydride. The alloys are in
either a liquid or solid state. Thus, the rejection of claim 14 over
Shimada is clear error as Shimada does not teach the storage of
hydrogen as a gas; instead, Shimada teaches the storage of
hydrogen in a solid or liquid state as hydrogen occluding alloy.
Appeal Br. 8.
In essence, Appellants argue only that Shimada does not render the
claim obvious because Shimada does not store hydrogen as a gas and only
stores a hydrogen occluding alloy. However, we find the fact that Shimada
discloses storing a hydrogen occluding alloy, by itself, does not show any
3
Appeal2014-009548
Application 12/746,705
error in the rejection. Rather, we first agree with the Examiner that the
claim does not require the storage of hydro gen as Appellants' interpretation
of the claim seems to indicate. The claim recites a method of regulating
withdrawal of gas related to when "a gas content in the sorption reservoir
decreases" and does not positively state that that the sorption reservoir must
be a storage device for the gas content that decreases.
Shimada discloses the use of an alloy tank to supply hydrogen to a
fuel cell. Shimada, Abstract. Although Shimada uses an alloy for hydrogen
storage, as noted above, that fact alone does not preclude Shimada from
teaching or suggesting the claimed method. Further, we find that hydrogen
would be necessarily present in Shimada's occlusion tank as it is being
released from the alloy and before it passes through a flow control valve.
See Shimada i-f 32; see also Ans. 6. Without further explanation, it is not
clear why this hydrogen cannot be said to be stored in the tank, as per
Appellants' apparent interpretation of the claim, or cannot be the gas whose
content decreases, as specifically required by the claim. In short, the fact
that Shimada stores a hydrogen occluding alloy is not sufficient to show
error in the rejection. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and we
sustain the rejection of claim 14. For the same reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claims 22-27, which are not separately argued.
Regarding the remaining rejections, Appellants assert only that "Gross
and Kubo fail to remedy Shimada's deficiencies." Appeal Br. 8. We found
no such deficiencies in Shimada, and thus, we also sustain the remaining
obviousness rejections for the same reasons discussed above.
4
Appeal2014-009548
Application 12/746,705
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 14
and 22-33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5