Aoki, Tetsuya

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 19, 2020

14001373 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2020)

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.
14/001,373 08/23/2013 Tetsuya Aoki 040356-0733 9644
22428 7590 06/19/2020
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
DOVE, TRACY MAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2020 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TETSUYA AOKI
____________________

Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
September 6, 2018 decision finally rejecting claims 12–18, 20–22, and 25–35,
which constitute all the claims pending in this application (“Final Act.”). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was
held on May 21, 2020. A transcript of that hearing will be part of the record.
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies NISSAN Motor Co., LTD, as the real
party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a fuel cell system for generating
power by supplying a reaction gas to a fuel cell (Abstract). The system
includes a wet state detection unit configured to detect a wet state of the
electrolyte membrane of the fuel cell (id.). The wet state is a measurement
of the moisture content of the electrolytic membrane (Spec. ¶ 45). The
system further includes a steady time target wet state setting unit configured
to set a steady time target wet state of the electrolyte membrane during a
steady operation of the fuel cell system, and a transient time target wet state
setting unit configured to set a transient time target wet state so that the wet
state of the electrolyte membrane gradually changes from a wet state
detected before a transient operation starts to the steady time target wet state
during the transient operation in which the operating condition of the fuel
cell system changes (Spec. ¶ 5). The controller sets the transient time target
wet state such that a rate of change of the transient time target wet state is
smaller than a rate of change of a wet state according to a change rate of the
output from the target output to the next target output, in essence throttling
back the change (Spec. ¶¶78–89). Details of the claimed invention are set
forth in representative claim 12, which is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief (emphasis added):
12. A fuel cell system for generating power by supplying a
reaction gas to a fuel cell, comprising:
a wet state detection unit configured to detect a wet state of
an electrolyte membrane of the fuel cell, wherein the wet state of
the electrolyte membrane corresponds to a degree of moisture in
the electrolyte membrane;
Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373

3
an accelerator stroke sensor configured to detect an
accelerator operation amount based on a depression of an
accelerator pedal;
a controller; and
a device configured to adjust a flow rate of a reaction gas;
wherein the controller is programmed to:
set a target output of the fuel cell based on the
accelerator operation amount detected by the accelerator
stroke sensor;
set a steady time target wet state of the electrolyte
membrane during a steady operation of the fuel cell based
on an operating condition and the target output of the fuel
cell;
set a next target output of the fuel cell when the
accelerator operation amount detected by the accelerator
stroke sensor is changed;
set a transient time target wet state of the electrolyte
membrane during a transient operation based on the next
target output, the transient operation being an operation
state in which an actual output of the fuel cell is changing
from the target output to the next target output;
set the flow rate of the reaction gas based on the
steady time target wet state or the transient time target wet
state; and
set the transient time target wet state such that a
rate of change of the transient time target wet state is
smaller than a rate of change of a wet state according to a
change rate of the output from the target output to the next
target output, and
wherein the wet state detection unit includes an internal
resistance detector configured to detect an internal resistance of
the fuel cell and detects the wet state of the electrolyte membrane
based on the internal resistance of the fuel cell detected by the
internal resistance detector from a correlation between the wet
Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373

4
state of the electrolyte membrane of the fuel cell and the internal
resistance of the fuel cell.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 12–18, 20–22, and 25–35 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Matsumoto.2
2. Claims 12–18, 20–22, and 25–35 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sinha.3
DISCUSSION
We decide this appeal based on reasons common to each of the
claims. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 12 as
anticipated by Matsumoto (Rejection 1) and as obvious over Sinha
(Rejection 2).
Rejection 1. “A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re
Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs.
Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
In this instance, with regards to claim 12, Appellant argues, inter alia, that
Matsumoto does not disclose: “wherein the controller is programmed to...set
the transient time target wet state such that a rate of change of the transient
time target wet state is smaller than a rate of change of a wet state according

2 Matsumoto et al., WO 2010/053027 A1, published May, 14, 2010. We
refer, as do the Examiner and Appellant, to the US counterpart:
US 9,246,182 B2, issued January 26, 2016.
3 Sinha et al., US 2006/0263653 A1, published November 23, 2006.
Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373

5
to a change rate of the output from the target output to the next target
output,” as recited in claim 12 (Appeal Br. 16–17).
The Examiner finds that this limitation is taught by Matsumoto as
follows: “Matsumoto teaches limiting the target generated current such that
the rate of change in the target generated current does not exceed the limit
value calculated by the current change rate limit value calculating unit 35
(abstract)” (Final Act. 4). However, as explained by Appellant (Appeal
Br. 17), while Matsumoto does disclose calculating limit values for the rate
of upward or downward changes in the target generated current, Matsumoto
does not disclose limiting the rate of change of the wet state (or the water
clogging, which is the term used by Matsumoto).
Therefore, Matsumoto does not disclose a controller programmed to
set transient time target wet state such that a rate of change of the transient
time target wet state is smaller than a rate of change of a wet state according
to a change rate of the output from the target output to the next target output.
The Examiner does not dispute this, stating only that the claims recite that
the transient time target wet state is based on the next target output (Ans.
14). However, the claims plainly recite controlling of the rate of change of
the transient time target wet state, which is not addressed at all by
Matsumoto.
Accordingly, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence of
record does not support the Examiner’s finding of anticipation, and we
reverse the rejection.
Rejection 2. As was the case with Rejection 1 and Matsumoto,
Appellant argues that Sinha fails to teach or suggest “wherein the controller
Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373

6
is programmed to...set the transient time target wet state such that a rate of
change of the transient time target wet state is smaller than a rate of change
of a wet state according to a change rate of the output from the target output
to the next target output,” as recited in claim 12 (Appeal Br. 40–44).
Appellant argues that while Sinha does reference a rate of change of
hydration, Sinha does not disclose making that rate of change smaller than a
rate of change of a wet state according to a change rate of the output from
the target output to the next target output (Appeal Br. 43–44).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Sinha describes a fuel cell system which alters the operating
parameters of the fuel cell “based on the state of hydration, the rate of
change of the state of hydration, and a desired operational range for the state
of hydration” (Sinha, Abstract). The Examiner finds that Sinha teaches that
over-drying or over-flooding of the fuel stack leads to loss of performance,
as does cycling between those states (Final Act. 5–6). The Examiner further
finds that Sinha discloses that the desired operating conditions for the fuel
cell system (described as the operating condition space or OCS) “defines the
steady state normal operating boundary that results in best performance and
durability” of the fuel cell, and that “transient operations” often results in
stack conditions outside the OCS (Final Act. 5). The Examiner also finds
that Sinha teaches that the state of hydration is controlled in order to keep
the system within the OCS (Final Act. 6–7).
The Examiner finds that:
Claim 12 recites a rate of change of the transient time target wet
state is smaller than a rate of change of a wet state according to
a change rate of the output from the target output to the next
Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373

7
target output. See discussion of Sinha above. See [0022-0023]
and [0049].
(Final Act. 8). However, the portions of Sinha cited by the Examiner do not
explain how Sinha’s system uses a change rate of the output from the target
output to the next target output in order to adjust the rate of change of the
transient time target wet state, much less that the rate of change of the
transient time target wet state is smaller than it would otherwise be based on
the change rate of the output.
It is well established that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). In this instance, Appellant has demonstrated that the preponderance
of the evidence of record does not support a determination that Sinha teaches
or suggests “wherein the controller is programmed to...set the transient time
target wet state such that a rate of change of the transient time target wet
state is smaller than a rate of change of a wet state according to a change rate
of the output from the target output to the next target output.”
Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejections over Sinha.

Appeal 2019-005029
Application 14/001,373

8
CONCLUSION

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ References(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–18, 20–22,
25–35 102(b) Matsumoto
12–18, 20–22,
25–35
12–18, 20–22,
25–35 103(a) Sinha
12–18, 20–22,
25–35
Overall
Outcome
12–18, 20–22,
25–35

REVERSED