12504038 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

Ex Parte Shirvanian

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 2014

12504038 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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. 12/504,038 07/16/2009 Alireza Pezhman Shirvanian 81186462 9346 28395 7590 08/01/2014 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER HAN, KWANG S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1727 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2014 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 ALIREZ PEZHMAN SHIRVANIAN ____________ Appeal 2013-001339 Application 12/504,0381 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (emphasis added): 1. A fuel cell comprising: 1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Ford Motor Company. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2013-001339 Application 12/504,038 2 a plate having a plurality of channels formed therein that define a flow field and being configured such that, if a gas flows through the channels, an obstruction blocking a particular channel causes a pressure gradient between the channels that drives convection of the gas through the plate and between at least some of the channels; and a catalyst layer in fluid communication with the flow field. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Eisman et al. US 6,280,870 B1 Aug. 28, 2001 Issacci et al. US 2003/0129468 A1 July 10,2003 Mogi et al. US 2007/0172720 A1 July 26, 2007 Bai et al. US 2003/0124413 A1 July 3, 2003 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6,2 8-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisman in view of Issacci. 2. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisman and Issacci, as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Mogi. 3. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisman and Issacci, as applied to claims 5 2 Although claims 5 and 6 are omitted from the statement of rejection set forth at page 2 of the Answer, it is clear from the record that they are included in this rejection because the rejection of claims 5 and 6 is discussed in the body of the Examiner’s rejection. Answer 3; see also Final Action 2- 3. Appeal 2013-001339 Application 12/504,038 3 and 13, and further in view of Bai. 4. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisman, Issacci and Mogi. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in determining that Eisman as modified by Issacci would have suggested the claimed subject matter? We answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Appellant presents a single argument for all appealed claims, contending that “[t]he Examiner’s suggested modification of Eisman . . . does not yield the claimed invention.” App. Br. 2. Elaborating on this argument in reply, Appellant asserts: [M]odifying Eisman with Issacci would not yield a plate configured such that, if a gas flows through the channels, an obstruction blocking a particular channel causes a pressure gradient between the channels that drives convection of the gas through the plate and between at least some of the channels because pores of the [E]xaminer’s hypothetical plate would fill with water that may otherwise obstruct a particular channel-thus precluding convection of gas through the plate and between at least some of the channels. Reply Br. 2. We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner at pages 2-3 and 7-8 of the Answer. We agree with the Examiner that Eisman discloses a fuel cell having a porous plate (gas Appeal 2013-001339 Application 12/504,038 4 diffusion layer 84) having built-in flow channels 102 defining a flow field, Eisman, Fig. 6, col. 4, ll. 17-19, and a catalyst layer. Id. col. 6, ll. 8-9; see Answer 2. We further agree that Issacci teaches a fuel cell having interdigitated flow field 22 in which porous gas block mediums 24 are positioned adjacent the dead-ends of feed side channels 32. Issacci Abstract, Fig. 1A, ¶¶ 14, 19, 31, 51-52; see Answer 2-3. According to Issacci, this configuration provides a pressure gradient between feed side channels 32 and exhaust side channels 36, causing a convection flow of gas from the feed side channels through gas diffusion layer 26 to the exhaust side channels, as illustrated by arrow 54 in Figs. 1A and 3 of Issacci. Id. ¶¶ 47, 48. Appellant does not disagree with the Examiner’s implicit finding that Issacci’s porous gas block medium is “an obstruction” within the meaning of that term in Appellant’s claims 1, 8 and 16. See Answer 3, 8. In fact, Appellant states that “Issacci’s cathode gas does not escape through its porous block mediums . . ..” App. Br. 3. Appellant likewise does not challenge the Examiner’s finding regarding a motivation to combine Issacci’s porous gas block medium with Eisman’s flow field, namely that adding Issacci’s porous gas block medium would allow for removal of water from Eisman’s flow field. Answer 2-3. Appellant’s only argument is that the combined teachings of Eisman and Issacci, as proposed by the Examiner, would not result in the claimed convection of gas between the channels. We disagree. Appeal 2013-001339 Application 12/504,038 5 We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that implementing Eisman’s built-in flow channels 102 in an interdigitated configuration, as taught by Issacci, and modifying the interdigitated flow channels to include porous gas block mediums 24 adjacent the dead-ends of the feed side channels, as taught by Issacci, would result in a pressure gradient and convection of gas, as described in Appellant’s claims 1, 8 and 16. Answer 2-3, 7-8. Issacci expressly teaches that, with an interdigitated flow field having porous gas block mediums at the dead-ends of feed channels, there is a pressure gradient and convection of gas from the feed channels to the exhaust channels. Issacci, ¶¶ 47, 48. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that this same pressure gradient and gas convection would occur in the combination as proposed by the Examiner, with the only difference being that the gas would pass through the porous walls of Eisman’s flow channels, rather than through an adjacent diffusion (porous) layer, as in Issacci. As noted by the Examiner, in Eisman’s flow field, the porous plate functions as “both the flow field plate and gas diffusion layer combined into the same structure.” Answer 8. Although the water-filled pores of the gas block mediums would not themselves define channels of a flow field in the combination as proposed by the Examiner, cf. App. Br. 3, there is no such requirement recited in the appealed claims. CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DECISION Each rejection is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection Appeal 2013-001339 Application 12/504,038 6 with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED lp