Ex Parte BELCHUKDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201613668437 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/668,437 11105/2012 Mark A. BELCHUK 29293 7590 05/20/2016 FREUDENBERG-NOK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP LEGAL DEPARTMENT 47690 EAST ANCHOR COURT PLYMOUTH, MI 48170-2455 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 04-0050/DIV (8470-94/DVA) CONFIRMATION NO. 8318 EXAMINER Y ANCHUK, STEPHEN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2016 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): fngp@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK A. BELCHUK Appeal2014-009201 Application 13/668,437 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1through3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is generally directed to a method for manufacturing a fuel cell membrane electrode assembly having an ion exchange membrane affixed between first and second gas diffusion layers. App. Br. 3. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A method for manufacturing a fuel cell membrane electrode assembly having an ion exchange membrane affixed Appeal2014-009201 Application 13/668,437 between a first gas diffusion layer and a second gas diffusion layer, the method comprising the steps of: positioning the first and the second gas diffusion layers with the membrane in-between between two halves of a thermo-mold assembly, each mold half having a protn1ding region that mirrors the location of a high density region to be formed in the first and second gas diffusion layers at an outboard region that extends about a periphery of the first and second diffusion layers at a location spaced inward from an outer perimeter edge of the first and second gas diffusion layers; closing the mold halves under heat such that the protruding regions of the mold halves compress the first and the second diffusion layers at the high density regions to increase the density of the first and second diffusion layers at the high density regions; injecting an elastomeric material that is heated to a liquid within a cavity of the closed mold, the cavity located about the periphery of the membrane electrode assembly at a low density region that is outboard of the high density region, the liquid elastomer flows within and impregnates the first and second diffusion layers at the low density region; and curing the liquid elastomeric material to form an elastomeric seal that is impregnated within and forming a seal bead overtop of the first and second diffusion layers at the low density region and extends around side surfaces of the first and second diffusion layers at a perimeter of the first and second diffusion layers. App. Br. 10-11 (Claims Appendix). Appellant (see App. Br., generally) requests review of the following rejections from the Examiner's Final Office Action: 1 1 Although the Examiner indicates in the Answer that the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the applicant regards as the invention-set forth in the Final Office Action 2 Appeal2014-009201 Application 13/668,437 I. Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shibata et al., (US 2004/0058223 Al, published March 25, 2004; hereinafter "Shibata"), Kimura et al., (WO 2005/045970 Al, published May 19, 2005, with English equivalent US 2007 /0134531 Al, published June 14, 2007; hereinafter "Kimura")2, and Barton et al., (US 6,057,054, issued May 2, 2000; hereinafter "Barton"). II. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shibata, Kimura, Barton, and Artibise et al., (US 200410191604 Al, published September 30, 2004; hereinafter "Artibise"). OPINION After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner, we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shibata, Kimura, and Barton; and the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shibata, Kimura, Barton, and Artibise, for the reasons presented by Appellant. We add the following. The Examiner has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in the claims on entered October 25, 2013-is being maintained and is applicable to the appealed claims (Ans. 2), the Advisory Action entered January 14, 2014 states that the rejection "is overcome" by the Response to the Final Office Action filed by applicant on December 12, 2013. Therefore, this rejection is not before us in this appeal. 2 Appellant does not contest the Examiner's reliance on US 2007/0134531 Al, published June 14, 2007 as an English equivalent of WO 2005/045970 Al, published May 19, 2005. Accordingly, we also rely on the published U.S. patent application, and citations to Kimura refer to this document. 3 Appeal2014-009201 Application 13/668,437 appeal. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[The] [patent] examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case ofunpatentability."); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that while "the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong, ... the examiner retains the burden to show invalidity"). Claim 13 requires a method for manufacturing a fuel cell membrane electrode assembly to comprise, inter alia, positioning between two halves of a thermo-mold assembly first and second gas diffusion layers affixed on opposite sides of an ion exchange membrane, each mold half having a protruding region that mirrors the location of a high density region to be formed in the first and second gas diffusion layers, which extends about the periphery of the diffusion layers and is spaced inward from a low density region at an outer perimeter edge of the diffusion layers;4 closing the mold halves under heat such that the protruding regions of the mold halves compress the first and the second diffusion layers at the high density regions; injecting an elastomeric material that has been heated to a liquid within a cavity of the closed mold located about the periphery of the membrane electrode assembly; and curing the liquid elastomeric material to 3 For the purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1, the broadest claim on appeal, as representative, and decide the propriety of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on this claim alone. 4 Claim 1 recites that the cavity is located "about the periphery of the membrane electrode assembly at a low density region that is outboard of the high density region" indicating that the high density region is spaced inward from a low density region that is at an outer perimeter edge of the diffusion layers. 4 Appeal2014-009201 Application 13/668,437 form an elastomeric seal that extends around side surfaces of the diffusion layers at their perimeter. The Examiner contends that the anode-side and cathode-side separator plates of the fuel cell disclosed Shibata correspond to the mold halves recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. However, we agree with Appellant that Shibata does not disclose or suggest mold haves of a thermo-mold assembly as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-8. Shibata discloses a fuel cell that includes an anode-side separator plate 24A5 having a gas flow channel 25A on its anode facing side, a cathode-side separator plate 24 B having a gas flow channel 25B on its cathode facing side, and ribs 26A, 26B formed between the gas flow channels 25A, 25B. Shibata i-f 39. Shibata discloses that a membrane electrode assembly is sandwiched between the two separator plates, which comprises first and second gas diffusion layers on opposite sides of polymer electrolyte membrane 21. Shibata ,-r 40. Shibata discloses that portions of the gas diffusion layers 22A, 22B protrude into the gas flow channels in the separator plates, while other portions of the gas diffusion layers 23A, 23B are compressed by the ribs of the separator plates, decreasing their porosity relative to that of the protruding regions. Shibata i-fi-1 3 6, 41. The Examiner determines that the separator plates disclosed in Shibata are two halves of a "press assembly" that function to press and mold the gas diffusion layers when the separator plates are "closed," thus forming high density regions in the gas diffusion layers. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. 5 The reference numbers provided in the discussion of Shibata' s disclosures refer to Figure 3 of Shibata. 5 Appeal2014-009201 Application 13/668,437 However, as Appellant points out, the anode-side and cathode-side separator plates disclosed in Shibata are components of the fuel cell itself, and do not constitute two halves of a thermo-mold assembly used to manufacture a fuel cell membrane electrode assembly. App. Br. 6-8. The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Shibata, or provide any other evidence, establishing that the anode-side and cathode-side separator plates disclosed in Shibata can be used to form a high density region in first and second gas diffusion layers of a fuel cell that extends about the periphery of the diffusion layers and is spaced inward from a low density region at an outer perimeter edge of the diffusion layers, as recited in claim 1. Nor does the Examiner establish that when the anode-side and cathode-side separator plates disclosed in Shibata are "closed," a cavity is formed about the periphery of the membrane electrode assembly into which an elastomeric material that has been liquefied by heating can be injected and then cured to form an elastomeric seal that extends around side surfaces of the diffusion layers at their perimeter, as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner does not provide any explanation or reasoning establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have been led to modify the disclosures of Shibata, Kimura, and Barton in such a way so as to arrive at the method recited in claim 1. For example, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure or suggestion in these references of forming a high density region in first and second gas diffusion layers of a fuel cell that extends about the periphery of the diffusion layers and is spaced inward from a low density region at an outer perimeter edge of the diffusion layers, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not provide any explanation or reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would 6 Appeal2014-009201 Application 13/668,437 have been led to modify the gas diffusion layers disclosed in Shibata, Kimura, and Barton to have such a configuration. Accordingly, on this record, we concur with Appellant that the Examiner's evidence and explanation are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1-3 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We therefore do not sustain the rejections of these claims. ORDER For the reasons set forth above and in the Appeal Brief, the decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation