Ex Parte Becker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

11304198 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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.
11/304,198 12/15/2005 Marc Becker GP-306908 4712
65798 7590 09/17/2012
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
MARKS, JACOB B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARC BECKER, OLIVER MAIER, and
PETER WILLIMOWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2011-009336
Application 11/304,198
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009336
Application 11/304,198

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 8, 9, 14-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants state that the invention relates to a technique for
determining the relative humidity of a cathode input airflow to a fuel cell
stack. (Spec. Para. [0001].)
Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
14. A fuel cell system comprising:
a fuel cell stack including a cathode inlet and a cathode
outlet;
a water vapor transfer unit for humidifying a cathode
inlet airflow sent to the cathode inlet; and
a controller for determining the relative humidity of the
cathode inlet airflow, said controller determining a flow of
water through the water vapor transfer unit, determining a flow
of water into the cathode inlet using the flow of water through
the water vapor transfer unit and a flow of water through
ambient air, and calculating the relative humidity at the cathode
inlet using the flow of water into the cathode inlet.
(Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 21.)

THE REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aramaki (US
6,635,374 B1, issued October 21, 2003) in view of Koch (US

1 Appeal Brief filed November 9, 2010, hereinafter “App. Br.” and Claims
App’x, respectively.
Appeal 2011-009336
Application 11/304,198

3
6,102,037, issued August 15, 2000). (Examiner’s Answer,
dated January 20, 2011, “Ans.” 4-6.)

II. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 9,2 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aramaki in view of
Koch and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2002/0039674
A1, published April 4, 2002) and Westbrook et al. (US
6,067,844, issued May 30, 2000). (Ans. 6-12.)

ISSUE
The dispositive issue on appeal is:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Aramaki discloses a water
vapor transfer unit as recited in the claims?

DISCUSSION
The Examiner’s position is that the water supply system disclosed in
Aramaki, which injects water into the air supply for cooling a fuel cell,
controls the quantity of water supplied to the fuel cell, and thus is a water
vapor transfer unit. (Ans. 4.)
Appellants contend that Aramaki’s water supply system, which
includes a water supply valve and a water tank, is not a water vapor transfer
unit as recited in the claims. (App. Br. 13.) Appellants argue that “water
vapor transfer unit” is a common term of art and that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have considered a water tank and supply valve to be a
water vapor transfer unit. (App. Br. 13.) For support, Appellants point to
the Specification, which states that:

2 The Examiner does not include claim 9 in the heading for this rejection
(Ans. 6), but addresses claim 9 in the body of the rejection (Ans. 10-11).
Appeal 2011-009336
Application 11/304,198

4
It is known in the art to use a water vapor transfer (WVT) unit
to capture some of the water in the cathode exhaust, and use the
separated water to humidify the cathode airflow input.

. . .

The airflow from the compressor 14 on the line 16 is directed
through one side of a WVT unit 20 and the cathode exhaust gas
on the line 18 is directed through another side of the WVT unit
20. The WVT unit 20 includes permeation membranes or other
porous materials, as is well understood in the art, that collects
water vapor and liquid water in the cathode exhaust gas and
uses this water to humidify the airflow to the cathode input.

(Spec. Paras. [0006], [0007].)

We agree with Appellants, that it is clear from its description in the
Specification that a water vapor transfer unit is understood in the art to have
certain functional and structural features, including the structural features
necessary to collect water vapor and liquid water from the cathode exhaust
gas of the fuel cell and to recycle it to the cathode input of the fuel cell. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(“[T]he specification is ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
term,’ and . . .‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in
the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”’) (internal citations
omitted). Therefore, although not expressly recited in the claims, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood such structural features to be
present in the water vapor transfer unit.
Aramaki discloses a water supply system that comprises a water tank
and a water supply valve. (Col. 2, ll. 61-66.) The water is injected into the
water intake path through the supply valve, compressed, cooled, and then
Appeal 2011-009336
Application 11/304,198

5
supplied to the fuel cell. (Col. 1, ll. 51-56.) Aramaki does not disclose that
some of the water in the cathode exhaust is captured and used to humidify
the cathode airflow input, the function performed by a water vapor transfer
unit as described in the Specification. (Spec. Paras. [0006], [0007].)
Aramaki does not disclose that the water tank is connected to the cathode
exhaust emitted from the fuel cell or that the cathode exhaust is fed into the
water supply line upstream to the water supply valve. (See e.g., Fig. 4.)
Thus, we agree with Appellants that Aramaki does not disclose a water
vapor transfer unit as that structure is understood in the art as described in
the instant Specification. (App. Br. 13.)
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding that Aramaki discloses a
water vapor transfer unit. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

REVERSED

cu