Ex Parte Cho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12363958 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/363,958 0210212009 Kyu TaekCho
100807 7590 06/01/2016
Mintz Levin/Special Group
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
48268-188001US 3100
EXAMINER
MARKS, JACOB B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYU TAEK CHO, JONG JIN YOON, TAE WON LIM, SOO
WHAN KIM, JONG HYUN LEE, and MATTHEW M. MENCH1
Appeal2014-006187
Application 12/363,958
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 12, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real parties in interest are identified as Hyundai Motor Company and
Penn State University. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006187
Application 12/363,958
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a method for purging residual
water and hydrogen during shutdown of a fuel cell. Spec. 1. Claim 12 is
illustrative:
12. A method for purging residual water and hydrogen
during shutdown of a fuel cell, the method comprising:
supplying excess hydrogen and air to an anode and a
cathode, respectively, to purge residual water during shutdown
of the fuel cell; and
repeatedly, by a controller, opening and closing
periodically a solenoid valve provided at outlet lines of the
anode and the cathode, respectively, to apply a pulsing purge
pressure to the inside of the fuel cell, for a predetermined period
of time to remove residual liquid water or residual hydrogen in
the fuel cell.
App. Br., Claims App'x, 9.
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Ko cha
Hassanein
US 2006/0240293 Al
US 2008/0234768 Al
Oct. 26, 2006
Sept. 25, 2008
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection of
claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kocha, in view
of Hassanein.
OPINION
The dispositive issue for the prior art rejection is:
2
Appeal2014-006187
Application 12/363,958
Did the Examiner err in determining that Kocha, in view of
Hassanein, discloses the step of "repeatedly, by a controller, opening and
closing periodically a solenoid valve ... to apply a pulsing purge pressure to
the inside of the fuel cell, for a predetermined period of time" as recited in
claim 12?
After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both
Appellants and the Examiner, we affirm the stated rejection.
The Examiner correctly finds that Kocha describes supplying excess
hydrogen and air to an anode and a cathode, respectively, to purge residual
water during shutdown of a fuel cell. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3 (citing Kocha
i-fi-f 12-25, Figs. 1-10). The Examiner further finds that Kocha discloses
opening and closing the lines "several times in an alternating fashion during
the operation" and that "the duration of purging may be predetermined"
because "Kocha does disclose that drying purge flow rate should be tailored
for specific applications because it affects the drying time." Final Act. 3;
Ans. 3 (citing Kocha i120; Figs. 1-10).
The Examiner combined the disclosure of Kocha and its
predetermined purge flow rates, with the pulse-width modulated solenoid
valves of Hassanein, for the reason that Hassanein teaches "gas flow rates
can be very precisely controlled by using a pulse-width modulated solenoid
valve." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3 (citing Hassanein i135). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to control the purge rate of Kocha using a pulse-width modulated
solenoid valve because "Kocha discloses that flow rate control is important
and because Hassanein disclose[ s] that solenoid valves are useful for
precisely controlling gas flow rates." Id.
3
Appeal2014-006187
Application 12/363,958
Appellants argue that "both Kocha and Hassanein apply a constant
flow during the purge cycle" rather than "a pulsing action as a way of
purging the fuel cell." App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). According to
Appellants, Kocha discloses a constant gas flow during the purge cycle, with
the duration of the drying purge cycle determined by "monitoring the
resistivity of the proton exchange membrane (PEM), and, as an alternative,
monitoring the humidity of the cathode outlet gas during the shutdown
sequence." Id. at 6. Because Kocha's valves are opened and closed based
on temperature and drying purge flow rate, Appellants argue that the
combination of Kocha with solenoid valves "does not mean that the
controller and solenoid valves are configured to work together to generate a
pulse purge pressure." Id.
Appellants further argue that Hassanein' s pulse-width modulated
solenoid valve refers to an electrical signal type used to proportionally
control the solenoid valve and does not refer to a pulsing purge pressure
inside of a fuel cell as required by Claim 12. Id. at 7.
In response, the Examiner finds that a pulse purge pressure is applied
whenever the solenoid valve periodically opens and closes in accordance
with the Specification. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that the
dictionary definition of pulse is "'rhythmical beating' or a 'transient
variation of a quantity (as electric current or voltage) whose value is
normally constant' or 'an electromagnetic wave or modulation thereof of
brief duration."' Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds that the "[p ]recise control
of the flow rate (disclosed by Hassanein) is achieved by the electrical control
of the pulsing movement ([Hassanein] par. 3 5)." Id. The Examiner
concludes in view of these findings that "pulse width modulated solenoids
4
Appeal2014-006187
Application 12/363,958
are necessarily periodic." Id. The Examiner further responds that
"Applicant is correct in that the term pulse refers to an electrical signal.
However, when a pulsed electrical signal is electrically communicated, or
transduced, to a solenoid valve, the valve opens and closes periodically." Id.
at 5.
Appellants concede that "the Examiner is correct that a pulse width
modulated solenoid valve could be a way to apply the pressure" but "at no
time is it inherently obvious that the valve would be controlled to provide
such a pulse purge pressure to the fuel cell." Reply 4--5.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive that pulsing would
not "inherently be a result" of a solenoid valve using electrical impulses.
See Reply 4. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive given the lack of
evidence in support thereof. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (argument by counsel cannot take the place of evidence). We are
persuaded that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
finding that any pulse width modulated solenoid valve generates a pulse
pressure as required by Claim 12. See Ans. 3--4; Spec. 4:13-14, 8:3---6. The
Examiner correctly finds, and Appellants do not dispute, the disclosure in
the Specification of a pulse purge pressure being applied when the solenoid
valve periodically opens and closes. See id.; Spec. 4:13-14 ("pulse purge
pressure is applied to the inside of the fuel cell by the periodic opening and
closing operations of the solenoid valves"; 8:3---6 ("pulse purge pressure ...
is applied to the inside of the fuel cell by the periodic opening and closing
operations of the solenoid valves"). The preponderance of the evidence,
therefore, supports the Examiner's finding that the combination of Kocha
with the pulse-width modulated solenoid valves of Hassanein discloses the
5
Appeal2014-006187
Application 12/363,958
step of "repeatedly, by a controller, opening and closing periodically a
solenoid valve ... to apply a pulsing purge pressure to the inside of the fuel
cell, for a predetermined period of time to remove residual liquid water or
residual hydrogen in the fuel cell" as recited in claim 12. See Ans. 3.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 12
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kocha, in
view of Hassanein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
6