Ex Parte Cartwright et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2013

11562645 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013)

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.
11/562,645 11/22/2006 Michael Cartwright GP-306493-FCAR-CHE 9558
65798 7590 07/23/2013
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2013 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 MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT and GLENN W. SKALA
__________

Appeal 2012-002284
Application 11/562,645
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a fuel cell and method of heating a
cooling fluid in a cooling fluid inlet section of a fuel cell stack at cold stack
start-up (Spec. para. [0001]). The cooling fluid is heated by placing a
catalyst coating (i.e., 70 in Fig. 2) in the cathode section of the inlet area of
the cathode inlet header (i.e., 18 in Fig. 1) and introducing hydrogen into the
Appeal 2012-002284
Application 11/562,645

2
cathode inlet header at start-up to cause a chemical reaction that generates
heat. Id.
Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative:

1. A fuel cell stack comprising:
a cathode inlet header for receiving a gas;
flow field plates defining cathode side reactant gas flow
channels through which a cathode reactant gas flows and
cooling fluid flow channels through which a cooling fluid
flows;
an active region; and
a non-active inlet region located between the cathode
inlet header and the active region that receives the cathode
reactant gas flow and the cooling fluid flow before the active
region, wherein a structure within the cathode flow channels in
the non-active inlet region includes a catalyst that reacts with
hydrogen and air to generate heat to heat the cooling fluid in the
non-active inlet region.

17. A method for heating a cooling fluid flowing
through cooling fluid flow channels in a fuel cell stack at
system start-up, said method comprising:
catalyzing a structure in cathode flow channels in a non-
active inlet region of the stack, said non-active inlet region
located between a cathode inlet header and an
active region of the fuel cell stack; and
sending hydrogen and air to the cathode flow channels at
system start-up so that the hydrogen and air react with the
catalyst to generate heat that heats the cooling fluid in the non-
active inlet region.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as being unpatentable over Rock (US 2004/0209150 A1,
Appeal 2012-002284
Application 11/562,645

3
published Oct. 21, 2004) in view of Fuller (US 6,103,410, issued Aug.
15, 2000).
2. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rock in view of Fuller and Shore (US 6,913,739
B2, issued Jul. 5, 2005).
3. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rock in view of Fuller and Lee (US 2003/0203260
A1, published Oct. 30, 2003).
4. Claims 10, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rock in view of Fuller and Standke (US
2004/0229099, published Nov. 18, 2004).
5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rock in view of Fuller and Lin (US 2005/0271908 A1, published
Dec. 8, 2005).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner engage in impermissible hindsight in concluding
that it would have been obvious to combine Fuller’s catalyst coating with
Rock’s cathode inlet structure to arrive that the subject matter of claims 1,
12, and 17? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSES
The Examiner interprets the phrase “active region” in claims 1, 12,
and 17 as
the rectangular solid through the fuel cell stack wherein the
membrane active assembly lies, but including all corresponding
areas outside of the membrane electrode assembly, for example
Appeal 2012-002284
Application 11/562,645

4
the area of the coolant fields corresponding to where the MEA
is on the other is on the other side of the flow field plate.
(Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Rock teaches a fuel cell stack that
includes flow field plates 100 that include active areas and non-active
regions (46, 54, and 50) as shown in Rock’s Figure 6 (Ans. 5). The
Examiner finds that Rock fails to teach a catalyst that reacts with hydrogen
and air in the non-active inlet region (Ans. 5).
The Examiner finds that Fuller teaches a fuel cell stack having flow
field plates (54, 55, 56, and 57) defining reactant gas and cooling fluid flow
channels (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Fuller teaches an active region
(i.e., solid polymer electrolyte membrane 36, cathode 37 and anode 38). The
Examiner finds that Fuller teaches an inlet region that receives cathode
reactant gas flow 61 and cooling fluid flow 65 and includes a catalyst that
reacts with hydrogen and air to generate heat (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds
that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this generated heat
would inherently heat the cooling fluid (Ans. 6). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to coat a catalyst in the non-active region of
Rock such as taught by Fuller in order to get the fuel cell to a temperature
where normal operation can begin (Ans. 7).
Appellants argue that that Fuller does not teach placing the catalyst in
a non-active region located between the cathode inlet header and the active
region that receives the cathode reactant gas flow as required by claims 1,
12, and 17 (App. Br. 12). Appellants contend and the Examiner concedes
that Fuller teaches placing the catalyst in an active region of the fuel cell
only (App. Br. 12, Ans. 10). Appellants argue that the Examiner has not
identified a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2012-002284
Application 11/562,645

5
the art in the relevant field to combine the elements in a way the claimed
new invention does absent hindsight (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner engaged in
impermissible hindsight in combining the teachings of Rock and Fuller. It is
undisputed that Fuller teaches only an active region with a catalyst to heat
the water in the fuel cell (Ans. 10). The Examiner’s reason for adding
Fuller’s catalyst to the non-active inlet area of Rock’s fuel cell is based on
getting “the fuel cell to a temperature where normal operation can begin”
(Ans. 7). However, the only teaching to place the catalyst in the “non-active
inlet region” of the fuel cell is based on Appellant’s disclosure. Neither
Rock nor Fuller discloses placing the catalyst in a non-active region. The
Examiner’s finding that it is well within the ordinary level of skill in the art
to understand the reasons of Fuller for using a heating catalyst for heating
the fuel cell at start-up and further to apply that teaching to Rock for the
same reasons fails to address why it would have been obvious to place the
catalyst in the non-active inlet region of the fuel cell as required by
independent claims 1, 12, and 17 (Ans. 11). The Examiner has not provided
a credible reason or explanation for placing the catalyst in a non-active inlet
region of the fuel cell absent hindsight.
On this record, we are constrained to reverse all the Examiner’s § 103
rejections based on the combination of the disclosures of Rock and Fuller.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED
kmm