Ex Parte Angelopoulos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 2016

11538824 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2016)

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.
11/538,824 10/05/2006 Anastasios Angelopoulos GP-307594-GAPR-CHE 2650
104102 7590 10/07/2016
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
EXAMINER
MURATA, AUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2016 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 ANASTASIOS ANGELOPOULOS
and SCOTT L. PETERS
________________

Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–13, 15–21, 25–32, 34, 35, 37, and 40–47.1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a process for coating a bipolar plate. Claims 1
and 15 are illustrative:

1 Claim 38 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but
allowable if rewritten in independent form (Final Act. 17).
Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824

2
1. A process comprising:
providing a bipolar plate having a surface that delineates a
plurality of lands and channels which define a gas flow field;
applying an aqueous solution comprising a polyelectrolyte
polymer having functional groups, which are either cationic or
anionic, to the surface of the bipolar plate to form a
polyelectrolyte polymer layer on the surface over both the lands
and the channels;
applying a hydrophilic second coating to the polyelectrolyte
polymer layer such that the hydrophilic second coating is
disposed only in the channels, the hydrophilic second coating
having functional groups that are oppositely charged from the
functional groups of the polyelectrolyte polymer so that an
ionic bond is formed between the functional groups in the
polyelectrolyte polymer layer and the functional groups in the
hydrophilic second coating.

15. A process comprising:
(a) removing grease and contaminants from a surface of a
fuel cell bipolar plate by immersing the plate in a pretreatment
solution;
(b) rinsing the plate in a first bath of deionized water;
(c) rinsing the plate in a second bath of deionized water;
(d) immersing the plate in a first aqueous solution of a
first polyelectrolyte polymer having either cationic or anionic
functional groups to form a polyelectrolyte polymer layer on at
least a portion of the surface of the bipolar plate;
(e) rinsing the plate in a third bath of deionized water to
remove any of the first polyelectrolyte polymer not adhered to
the surface of the bipolar plate;
(f) rinsing the plate in a fourth bath of deionized water;
(g) immersing the plate in a second dispersion
comprising a second coating material having functional groups
that are oppositely charged from the functional groups of the
first polyelectrolyte polymer to form a hydrophilic second
coating on the polyelectrolyte polymer
layer;
Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824

3
(h) rinsing the plate in a fourth bath of deionized water to
remove any of the hydrophilic second coating material not
adhered to the polyelectrolyte polymer layer;
(i) rinsing the plate in a fifth bath of deionized water;
(j) repeating acts (d-i) for three cycles to form multiple
alternating layers of the polyelectrolyte polymer layer and the
hydrophilic second coating;
(k) thereafter drying the plate.

The References
Tsusaka US 2002/0001744 A1 Jan. 3, 2002
Furman US 2002/0013382 A1 Jan. 31, 2002
Coleman US 2003/0157391 A1 Aug. 31, 2003
Gu US 2005/0181264 A1 Aug. 18, 2005
Hammond Cunningham US 2006/0062982 A1 Mar. 23, 2006
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–12, and 40–
42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement, claims 15–20 and 44–46 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
Appellants regard as the invention, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10–13, 21, 25–32, 34,
35, 40–43, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gu in view of Hammond
Cunningham, claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gu in view of Hammond
Cunningham, Tsusaka and Furman, claims 15–20 and 44–46 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gu in view of Hammond Cunningham and Coleman
and claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gu in view of Hammond
Cunningham and Tsusaka.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs and affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824

4
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
To comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement, an applicant’s specification must “convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
he or she was in possession of the invention.” Carnegie Mellon Univ. v.
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
The Examiner argues that the Appellants’ independent claims 1
and 40 lack written descriptive support for the hydrophilic second coating
being “disposed only in the channels” because the Appellants’ Specification
describes only depositing the hydrophilic second material over the
polyelectrolyte polymer layer and then removing part of the hydrophilic
second material such that a selective portion of it remains in the channels
(Spec. ¶ 43; Fig. 6) (Final Act. 2).
The Appellants’ hydrophilic second material, after the portion of it
outside the channels has been removed, is disposed only in the channels as
required by the Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 40.
The Examiner asserts that the Appellants’ Specification discloses
disposing the hydrophilic second material only in the channels only by a
lithography technique using a mask, and does not support applying that
material in every way such as by inkjet printing (Final Act. 3).
The Appellants’ Specification indicates that what is significant to their
process is that the hydrophilic second material is disposed only in the
channels as recited in claims 1 and 40, not how it is disposed in that manner
(Spec. ¶ 43). The Examiner provides no support for the assertion that
Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824

5
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph requires the Appellants to disclose every
way of disposing the hydrophilic second coating only in channels.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
“[T]he indefiniteness inquiry asks whether the claims ‘circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.’”
Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Indus. Inc., 417 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (quoting In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971)).
The Examiner argues that in the Appellants’ independent claims 15
and 44 the meaning of “thereafter” in the “thereafter drying the plate”
limitation at the end of the claims is indefinite because the claims do not
specify the order of their steps (Final Act. 3).
Those claims indicate that the drying occurs after the
previously-recited steps, and drying at that point is disclosed in the
Appellants’ Specification (Spec. ¶ 21; Fig. 2). The Examiner provides no
reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the
claims as encompassing carrying out the “thereafter drying” step at a
previous point in the process.
Thus, the Examiner has not established that the Appellants’
claims 15–20 and 44–46 fail to circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Appellants argue the claims in two groups: 1) claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8,
10–13, 21, 25–32, 34, 35, 40–43, and 47, and 2) claims 15–20 and 44–46
Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824

6
(App. Br. 16–20).2 We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in each
group, i.e., claims 1 and 15. The other claims in each group stand or fall
with the claim we address. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012).
Claim 1
Gu coats only the channels (72) of a bipolar plate (electroconductive
element 70) with a porous hydrophilic liquid distribution media (82)
comprising a polymer/salt solution, and applies thereto a hydrophilic coating
(¶¶ 20, 33, 49, 54, 59; Fig. 7).
Hammond Cunningham applies to a surface in an electrode assembly
a layer-by-layer (LBL) film of alternating polycationic and polyanionic
layers having electrostatic bonding (¶¶ 17, 40, 62). “Because the LBL films
can be tailored to deposit any polyelectrolyte (PE) couple to any desired
thickness, ranging from a few angstroms to a few microns, they are much
less expensive technology than conventional membranes” (¶ 15).
The Appellants assert that Gu distributes liquid only on both lands and
channels (App. Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 6).
Gu discloses and illustrates that the liquid distribution media (82’) is
disposed only in the channels (76’) and that the lands (74’) are uncovered
(¶ 49; Fig. 7).
The Appellants assert that Hammond Cunningham’s electrostatic
bonding (¶ 62) is not ionic bonding (App. Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 6–7).
Ionic bonding is “[a] type of chemical bonding in which one or more
electrons are transferred completely from one atom to another, thus
converting the neutral atoms into electrically charged atoms; these ions are

2 The Appellants do not separately argue claims 9 and 37 (App. Br. 20–21).
Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824

7
approximately spherical and attract one another because of their opposite
charge.”3 An electrostatic bond is “[a] valence bond in which two atoms are
kept together by electrostatic forces caused by transferring one or more
electrons from one atom to the other.”4 Hence, an electrostatic bond appears
to be an ionic bond.
Claim 15
The Appellants assert that “Hammond Cunningham does not teach or
disclose at least the feature of ‘thereafter drying the plate’” (App. Br. 19–
20).
Hammond Cunningham, when applying LBL layers to make a
polyelectrolyte-carbon electrode (LPCE), uses a number of sequential
dipping, drying and rinsing steps (¶ 52). Hammond Cunningham does not
indicate that the electrode is to remain wet between the last rinsing step in
the sequence and use of the electrode. Hence, Hammond Cunningham
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than
ordinary creativity, to let the electrode dry after the final rinse, thereby
meeting the Appellants’ “thereafter drying” claim requirement. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an
obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

3 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1049
(5th ed. 1994).
4 Id. at 667.
Appeal 2015-002356
Application 11/538,824

8
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–12, and 40–42 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and claims 15–20 and 44–46 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph are reversed. The rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10–13, 21, 25–32, 34, 35, 40–43,
and 47 over Gu in view of Hammond Cunningham, claim 9 over Gu in view
of Hammond Cunningham, Tsusaka and Furman, claims 15–20 and 44–46
over Gu in view of Hammond Cunningham and Coleman and claim 37 over
Gu in view of Hammond Cunningham and Tsusaka are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED