11215105 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2012)

Ex Parte Vyas et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 7, 2012

11215105 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 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. 11/215,105 08/30/2005 Gayatri Vyas GP-305882 2852 65798 7590 05/07/2012 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 200 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER WANG, EUGENIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/07/2012 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 GAYATRI VYAS, MAHMOUD H. ABD ELHAMID, and YOUSSEF M. MIKHAIL ____________ Appeal 2010-012160 Application 11/215,105 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1-6 and 10-14 as unpatentable over Yasuo (US 2002/0187379 A1, pub. Dec. 12, 2002) in view of Hara (JP 08-222237, pub. Aug. 30, 1996; as transl.) and Kaye (US 2005/0008911 A1, pub. Jan. 13, 2005), of claims 7 and 15 over Yasuo, Hara, Kaye, and Knights (US 2004/0157110 A1, pub. Aug. 12, 2004), and of claims 8 and 16 over Appeal 2010-012160 Application 11/215,105 2 Yasuo, Hara, Kaye, and Imazato (US 2002/0049134 A1, pub. Apr. 25, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We AFFIRM. Appellants claim a fuel cell and a fuel cell stack comprising a flow field plate with "a coating being made of only a carbon nano tube or carbon nano fiber material that makes the flow field plate hydrophilic" (claim 1; see also claim 10). Representative claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A fuel cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly and a flow field plate being made of a plate material, said flow field plate including a plurality of flow channels that receive a reactant gas, said flow field plate further including a coating being made of only a carbon nano tube or carbon nano fiber material that makes the flow field plate hydrophilic. We will sustain each of the above rejections for the reasons well expressed by the Examiner in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis. The Rejection of Independent Claims 1 and 10 It is the Examiner's basic position that it would have been obvious to replace Yasuo's conductive, hydrophilic coating of transition metal material with a conductive, hydrophilic coating of only carbon nano tube material in view of Hara and Kaye (Ans. 4-12). Appellants argue that the Examiner's obviousness conclusion is erroneous because Yasuo teaches away from coating materials having an asymmetrical structure and because "Figure 2 of Appellants['] application clearly shows that the carbon nano tube coating has the asymmetrical shape that Yasuo is teaching away from" (App. Br. 8). Appeal 2010-012160 Application 11/215,105 3 Appellants' argument is unpersuasive for two independent reasons. First, we agree with the Examiner that Yasuo does not teach away from using asymmetrical structures but rather merely expresses a preference for using "amorphous metals [that] do not have asymmetrical structures such as grain boundary and dislocation, which are found in a crystal phase" (Yasuo para. [0058]) (Ans. para. bridging 17-18). Second, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have misinterpreted Yasuo's term "asymmetrical" as including the uneven surface of the carbon nano tube coating shown in Figure 2 (id. at para. bridging 18-19). Significantly, this second reason has not been disputed by Appellants notwithstanding their submission of a Reply Brief. In addition, Appellants point out that Kaye's coating includes a polymeric material mixed with carbon nano tubes rather than a coating made of only a carbon nano tube or carbon nano fiber material that makes the flow field plate hydrophilic as required by the independent claims (App. Br. 9). Appellants argue that "[n]othing in the combination of Yasuo, Hara and Kaye teaches a carbon nano fiber or carbon nano tube only layer for imparting hydrophilic properties" (id.). We share the Examiner's determination that Hara discloses a coating made of carbon graphite only (see, e.g., Hara transl. para. [0018]) and that this disclosure would have suggested using the carbon nano tube material of Kaye by itself as Yasuo's coating material (Ans. para. bridging 21-22). Likewise, we share the Examiner's position that Yasuo teaches carbon materials were known in the prior art to provide the desired characteristic of hydrophilicity (see, e.g., Yasuo para. [0007]) and that this teaching would have given an artisan a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the Appeal 2010-012160 Application 11/215,105 4 hydrophilic coating desired by Yasuo with a coating made of only a carbon nano tube material (id. at para. bridging 22-23). Once again, Appellants have not contested the Examiner's position with any reasonable specificity in the record before us. For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, substantial evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that the fuel cells defined by independent claims 1 and 10 would have been obvious over Yasuo, Hara, and Kaye. The Rejections of the Dependent Claims Appellants' arguments directed to the dependent claims do not reveal error in the Examiner's rejections. Specifically, the argument regarding dependent claims 3 and 12 (App. Br. 10-11) fails to address the optimization theory of the Examiner's rejection (see, e.g., Ans. 12-13). Appellants' argument concerning dependent claims 4 and 13 (App. Br. 11) does not identify any difference between the coating defined by these product-by-process claims and the coating resulting from the Examiner's proposed combination of Yasuo, Hara, and Kaye (see, e.g., Ans. 13-14, para. bridging 27-28). Similarly, the argument directed to dependent claims 5 and 14 (App. Br. 11-12) fails to identify any claim limitation not satisfied by the rejection of these claims. Finally, the only arguments advanced with reasonable specificity against the separate rejections of claims 7 and 15 and of claims 8 and 16 are the unsuccessful arguments made against the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 (id. at 12-13). Appeal 2010-012160 Application 11/215,105 5 Conclusion We sustain each of the Examiner's Â§ 103 rejections of the appealed claims for the reasons given above and in the Answer. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ssl