Ex Parte Alp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2014

11928608 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/928,608 10/30/2007 Abdullah B. Alp P001121-FCA-CHE 7599
65798 7590 02/20/2014
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
BEST, ZACHARY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2014 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 ABDULLAH B. ALP, PRASAD GADE,
and JON R. SIENKOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2012-008100
Application 11/928,608
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH,
and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-008100
Application 11/928,608

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 through 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a fuel cell system. App. Br. 4-7.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A fuel cell system comprising:
a first split stack including a cathode input, a cathode
output, an anode input and an anode output;
a second split stack including a cathode input, a cathode
output, an anode input and an anode output, wherein the
cathode inputs for the first and second split stacks are coupled
together and the cathode outputs from the first and second split
stacks are coupled together;
a first bleed valve coupled to the anode input of the first
split stack;
a second bleed valve coupled to the anode input of the
second split stack;
an orifice in fluid communication with the first and
second bleed valves and the coupled cathode outputs of the first
and second split stacks; and
a pressure sensor coupled across the orifice, said pressure
sensor providing a pressure measurement indicative of flow
through the orifice so as to provide an indication of whether
anode exhaust gas is flowing through the first and second bleed
valves.
Appeal 2012-008100
Application 11/928,608

3
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Arthur US 2007/0072020 A1 Mar. 29, 2007
Koenekamp US 2007/0207362 A1 Sep. 6, 2007
Yoshida1 WO 2005/088755 A1 Sep. 22, 2005
Appellants (App. Br. 8) request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s final office action of October 14, 2011.
I. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arthur and Yoshida.
II. Claims 3, 5 and 13-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arthur, Yoshida and Koenekamp.
OPINION
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that the combined teachings of Arthur and Yoshida would have
led one skilled in the art to a fuel cell system having an orifice in fluid
communication with a first and second bleed valves and the coupled cathode
outputs of the first and second split stacks and having a single pressure
sensor across the orifice as required by the subject matter of independent
claims 1, 11 and 15? 2

1 The Examiner relied on US Published Application No. 2008/0220303 A1
to Yoshida, published September 11, 2008, as the English equivalent to the
WO 2005/088755 A1. Accordingly, references to Yoshida in our discussion
are to Yoshida’s Published Application.
2 A discussion of Koenekamp, cited by the Examiner in the separate
rejection of claims 3, 5 and 13-19 (Ans. 6-7) is unnecessary for disposition
of the present appeal. The Examiner relied upon this reference for features
not related to the dispositive issue.
Appeal 2012-008100
Application 11/928,608

4
We answer this question in the affirmative and, therefore, we
REVERSE.
Appellants argue that nothing in the combination of Arthur and
Yoshida teaches an orifice in fluid communication with first and second
bleed valves where a pressure sensor is coupled across the orifice as
claimed. App. Br. 10. The Examiner cited Yoshida to teach the use of
pressure sensors to monitor the pressure along a fuel supply path of a fuel
cell system to determine whether there is a hydrogen leak or fault in the
valve. Ans. 5; Yoshida ¶¶ [0068], [0075].
After reviewing the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the combination of Arthur and
Yoshida does not teach or suggest an orifice in fluid communication with a
first and second bleed valves and the coupled cathode outputs of the first and
second split stacks and having a single pressure sensor across the orifice as
required by the subject matter of independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that Arthur discloses an orifice in fluid
communication with the first and second bleed valves (72, 74) and the
coupled cathode outputs of the first and second split stacks because Arthur
teaches an embodiment where bled material, which is fluid from the anode
lines, is combined with the cathode exhaust and sent to the environment.
Ans. 5, 8; Arthur ¶¶ [0015], [0025]. We disagree. While the Examiner
asserts that this disclosure by Arthur indicates that the cathode exhaust is in
direct fluid communication with the anode lines and the cathode input (Ans.
8), the Examiner has not adequately explained how this disclosure would
have led one skilled in the art to an orifice in fluid communication with a
first and second bleed valves and the coupled cathode outputs of the first and
Appeal 2012-008100
Application 11/928,608

5
second split stacks as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1.
The Examiner has not directed us to any portion of Arthur that describes
such an orifice or supports the assertion that Arthur discloses an orifice as
claimed.
Accordingly, we reverse the prior art rejection of claims 1-19 for the
reasons stated above and those presented by Appellants.
The Examiner separately rejected claims 3, 5 and 13-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arthur, Yoshida and Koenekamp.
Ans. 6. However, Koenenkamp is not relied upon by the Examiner to
overcome the above noted deficiency of Arthur.
We also reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3, 5, and 13-
19 for the reasons given above and presented by Appellants.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

kmm