Ex Parte Eickhoff

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2017

12828077 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2017)

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.
12/828,077 06/30/2010 Steven J. Eickhoff H0023250.103681 6154
92689 7590
HONEYWELL/SLW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
05/11/2017 EXAMINER
VO, JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN J. EICKHOFF
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—13 and 15—17.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is generally directed to an electrical
power generator, a recharging system for recharging a hydrogen fuel
chamber, and a method for recharging an electrical power generator. App.
Br. 6—8. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell International
Inc. Appeal Brief filed November 2, 2015 (“App. Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
below:
1. An electrical power generator comprising:
a fuel cell;
a housing, surrounding the fuel cell;
a fuel chamber enclosing a hydrogen-generating fuel;
a recharging valve coupled to the fuel chamber, the recharging
valve comprising:
a first compression member disposed within the
recharging valve to form a first seal between the recharging
valve and a hydrogen recharger;
a spring laterally disposed within an inner perimeter
defined by the first compression member;
a valve stem positioned relative to a valve seat by the
spring; and
a second compression member configured to form a second
seal between the valve stem and the valve seat, wherein the first
compression member is positioned within the recharging valve to
form the first seal before opening the second seal and upon
engagement of the hydrogen recharger to the recharging valve.
App. Br. 22 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant requests review of the following rejections set forth in the
Final Office Action entered June 4, 2015 (“Final Act.”), which the Examiner
maintains in the Answer entered April 4, 2016 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1—13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yang et al. (US 2007/0141440 Al, published June 21, 2007, “Yang”) in
view of Adams et al. (US 2005/0116190 Al, published June 2, 2005,
“Adams”) and Takahashi et al. (US 2007 /0122678 Al, May 31, 2007,
“Takahashi”);
II. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelley
et al. (US 2002/0100682 Al, published August 1, 2002 “Kelley”) in view of
Adams and Takahashi; and
2
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
III. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adams
and Takahashi.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—13 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in
the Final Action and the Answer.
We add the following discussion primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues all of the pending claims as a group, and in so doing,
addresses all of the rejections together, despite the application of different
combinations of prior art references in each of the three rejections. App. Br.
10-20. Therefore, for the purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 as
representative, and claims 2—13 and 15—17 will stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Yang discloses a galvanic cell comprising an outer cylinder (housing),
an inner cylinder (fuel chamber) for storing water (fuel), and a water-filling
cap 19 that allows water external to the galvanic cell to be supplied to the
inner cylinder.2 Yang || 15, 17, 20, and 26, Fig. 2. Yang discloses that the
galvanic cell can be utilized in a rechargeable fuel cell. Yang 132. The
Examiner finds that “Yang fails to disclose the claimed structure of the valve
such as the springs, compression members, and O-rings in the claimed
arrangement as to regulate the flow of fuel,” and the Examiner relies on
Adams and Takahashi for suggesting these features. Final Act. 3—6.
Adams discloses a cartridge used to supply a fuel such as methanol to
a fuel cell that powers an electronic device. Adams 12, 23, and 27, Fig. 2,
2 Reference numerals refer to Figure 2 of Yang.
3
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
Fig. 4. Adams discloses that when the cartridge is inserted into the device,
fuel is transferred from the cartridge to the fuel cell using a two component
shut-off valve. Adams Tflf 27—29, 31. Adams discloses that a first
component of the valve resides in the cartridge and a second matching
component of the valve resides in the electronic device that the fuel cell
powers. Adams 131. Adams discloses that the first valve component
includes valve body 30,3 plunger 32, and spring 34 that biases plunger 32
outward, causing inner O-ring 38 to press against valve seat surface 40 and
form a seal within the first valve component. Adams 131, Fig. 4. Adams
discloses that suitable materials for making valve body 30 include
polyethylene and polypropylene. Adams 136. The Examiner finds that
inner O-ring 3 8 corresponds to the recited second compression member and
valve body 30 corresponds to the recited first compression member. Final
Act. 4.
Adams further discloses opening the first valve component by pushing
plunger 32 against the biasing force of spring 34 with the valve body of the
second matching valve component, causing inner O-ring 38 to move away
from valve seat surface 40, and allowing fuel to flow from liner or bladder
14 to the fuel cell. Adams H 27, 32. Adams discloses that the first valve
component also contains outer O-ring 44 that forms an inter-component seal
with the valve body of the second valve component. Adams 133, Fig. 4.
Adams discloses that this seal between the first and second valve
components is preferably established before fuel flows out of liner 14. Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to replace the
3 Reference numerals refer to Figure 4 of Adams.
4
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
water-filling cap disclosed in Yang with the valve disclosed in Adams to
supply fluid such as water to Yang’s inner cylinder, because Adams’ valve
“would offer a more control/safe manner to deliver fluid to the fuel cell
chamber; and [] the cap and valve have the same function of allowing the
fuel cell device to be refill[ed] with water/fuel/fluid and substituting the cap
with the valve would not change its function.” Final Act. 4—5.
The Examiner finds that the valve disclosed in Adams has the same
structure as the recharging valve recited in claim 1, except that Adams does
not explicitly disclose that valve body 30 (first compression member) is
compressible, and the Examiner relies on Takahashi for disclosing this
feature. Final Act. 3—5; see also Ans. 4.
Takahashi discloses a fuel cell system comprising a liquid supply joint
device that connects a liquid reservoir containing fuel to a liquid acceptor
that supplies fuel to a fuel cell. Takahashi || 3, 19, and 42. Takahashi
discloses that the liquid supply joint device comprises liquid reservoir
housing 10,4 valve body 50, and spring 80 that applies force to valve body
50 to form sealing face 53 that prevents discharge of liquid from the
reservoir to an accepter. Takahashi || 42, 49, 50, and Fig. 2. Takahashi
discloses that liquid reservoir housing 10 or 100 connects to liquid accepter
housing 200. Takahashi || 47, 54, and Fig. 5. Takahashi discloses that
valve-body pressing pin 203 is attached to liquid accepter housing 200, and
Takahashi discloses that valve-body pressing pin 203 can move back and
forth. Takahashi 153, Fig. 5. Takahashi discloses that when housings 100
and 200 are connected, pressing pin 203 presses valve body 50 against the
force applied by spring 80, causing valve body 50 to move and open the seal
4 Reference numerals refer to Figures 2 and 5 of Takahashi.
5
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
formed at sealing face 53, which allows liquid from the reservoir to flow to
the liquid accepter. Takahashi | 54, Fig. 5.
Takahashi discloses that labyrinth seal 15 of a protruding shape is
formed on the outside end face 16 of housing 10 or 100. Takahashi 146,
Fig. 2, and Fig. 5. Takahashi discloses that when liquid reservoir housing
100 contacts liquid acceptor housing 200, labyrinth seal 15 “elastically
changes its shape and becomes almost squashed, thereby further enhancing
sealability.” Takahashi | 56. Takahashi discloses that housing 10 is made
of an elastic material that can change its shape. Takahashi 143.
The Examiner finds that Adams’ valve body 30 (first compression
member) “is similar to the placement, structure, and function of the housing
10 of Takahashi,” and the Examiner further finds that Adams and Takahashi
disclose that the same type of materials are used to make Adams’ valve body
30 and Takahashi’s housing 10. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to incorporate an
elastic labyrinth seal 15 as taught by Takahashi onto the outer end of valve
body 30 disclosed in Adams (corresponding to a first compression member
as recited in claim 1) to advantageously enhance sealing as taught by
Takahashi. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 10. The Examiner further concludes
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized at the time of
Appellant’s invention that Adams’ valve body 30 (first compression
member) formed of the same elastic material disclosed in Takahashi would
be compressible. Final Act. 5—6; see also Ans. 4, 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously equates the recited
first compression member with Takahashi’s housing 10 on which labyrinth
6
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
seal 15 is formed based on the alleged compressibility of Takahashi’s
housing 10 and labyrinth seal 15. App. Br. 13—14. Appellant argues that the
level of compression provided by the first compression member recited in
claim 1 is far greater than the “elastic change” of Takahashi’s housing 10
and labyrinth seal 15 because the recited first compression member “also
operates to open a second seal.” App. Br. 14.
However, claim 1 recites “a first compression member disposed
within the recharging valve to form a first seal between the recharging valve
and a hydrogen recharger;” and recites “a second compression member
configured to form a second seal between the valve stem and the valve seat.”
Claim 1 further recite that “the first compression member is positioned
within the recharging valve to form the first seal before opening the second
seal and upon engagement of the hydrogen recharger to the recharging
valve.”
Accordingly, the plain language of claim 1 does not indicate that the
first compression member opens a second seal as Appellant asserts. Instead,
claim 1 recites that the first compression member forms the first seal before
the second seal is opened (“before opening the second seal”) and when the
hydrogen recharger engages with the recharging valve (“upon engagement
of the hydrogen recharger to the recharging valve”). Appellant’s arguments
are therefore contrary to the plain language of claim 1, and are accordingly
unpersuasive of reversible error.
Appellant further argues that Adams discloses that the same materials
are used to form outer casing 12 and valve body 30, and Appellant contends
that Adams describes such materials as “rigid.” App. Br. 14—15. Appellant
argues that Adams’ valve body 30 and Takahashi’s protrusion 15, alone or
7
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
combined, therefore fail to teach or suggest the recited first compression
member. App. Br. 15.
However, Adams does not actually disclose that the materials used to
form outer casing 12 and valve body 30 are rigid, as Appellant asserts.
Rather, Adams discloses that “[pjreferably, outer casing 12 is more rigid
than liner 14, and protects the inner liner, which is preferably flexible.”
Adams 127. Adams further discloses that a suitable material for outer
casing 12 is “a relatively rigid polyphenylene oxide (PPO) or a modified
PPO.” Adams 144. Adams thus does not disclose that outer casing 12 is
rigid in an absolute sense, but discloses that outer casing 12 is relatively
more rigid than flexible liner or bladder 14.
In addition, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
Adams and Takahashi disclose that the same type of materials are used to
form Adams’ valve body 30 and Takahashi’s housing 10. Compare App.
Br. 10—21, with Final Act. 5. Appellant’s argument does not take into
consideration Takahashi’s explicit disclosure that “housing 10 is made of an
elastic member (a material that can elastically change its shape)” (Takahashi
143), and disclosure that “labyrinth seal 15 formed on the housing 10 of the
liquid supply joint device 1 elastically changes its shape and becomes almost
squashed.” Takahashi | 56. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments and the
relied-upon disclosures in Adams do not establish that Adams’ valve body
30 would not be compressible and capable of forming a seal. Nor do
Appellant’s arguments and the relied-upon disclosures in Adams establish
that a labyrinth seal 15 as disclosed in Takahashi added to the outer surface
of Adams’ valve body 30 would also not be compressible and capable of
forming a seal. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
8
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979); see also In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d
1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974). Appellant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive of reversible error.
Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to use a flexible material for Adams’ valve body 30
because Adams relies on O-ring 44 for sealing. App. Br. 15. Appellant
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art also would not have been
motivated to use a flexible material for Takahashi’s housing 10 or labyrinth
seal 15 because Takahashi relies on sealing face 53 for sealing. App. Br. 16.
Appellant further argues that Adams’ O-ring 44 and Takahashi’s sealing
face 53 are both radial seals that rely on the geometry of the inner and outer
diameter of the seals for sealing, but in contrast, the first and second
compression members recited in claim 1 are axial seals that rely on the
pressure of the recharger for sealing. Id.
However, as discussed above, Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that the same type of materials—which Takahashi
discloses are elastic—are used to form Adams’ valve body 30 and
Takahashi’s housing 10. In addition, as also discussed above, Takahashi
discloses that when liquid reservoir housing 100 contacts liquid acceptor
housing 200, labyrinth seal 15 “elastically changes its shape and becomes
almost squashed, thereby further enhancing sealability.” Takahashi 156.
Accordingly, even though Takahashi relies on sealing face 53 for sealing,
and Adams relies on O-ring 44 for sealing, one of ordinary skill in the art
reasonably would have been led by Takahashi’s disclosure that labyrinth
seal 15 further enhances sealability to add labyrinth seal 15 to the end face
of Adams’ valve body 30 (first compression member) to enhance its
9
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
sealability to the matching valve component. Claim 1 does not require the
first and second compression members to form axial seals. Nevertheless, a
seal formed between labyrinth seal 15 added to the end face of Adams’ valve
body 30 and the matching valve component would be an axial seal that relies
on the pressure of the second valve component for sealing. Appellant’s
arguments are therefore unpersuasive of reversible error.
Appellant further argues that Takahashi’s labyrinth seal 15 would not
enable forming a first seal before opening a second seal as recited in claim 1
because, as supposedly seen from Figure 5 of Takahashi, face 16 of liquid
reservoir housing 100 and face 201 of liquid acceptor housing 200 would be
the last surfaces to contact each other as housings 100 and 200 are brought
into contact. App. Br. 17. Appellant argues that, in contrast, Adams
discloses that the inter-component seal between the first and second valve
components enabled by O-ring 44 is established before fuel is transported
out of liner 14. App. Br. 18. Appellant argues that “[substituting
Takahashi’s seal using protrusion 15 in Adams would not establish an inter­
component seal before fuel is transported, and would therefore change the
principle of operation of Adams.” Id.
However, adding Takahashi’s labyrinth seal 15 to the outer end of
Adams’ valve body 30 as the Examiner proposes would still result in
formation of a seal between O-ring 44 and the second valve component
before fuel is transported out of liner 14. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 10.
Accordingly, adding Takahashi’s labyrinth seal 15 to the outer end of
Adams’ valve body 30 would not change Adams’ principle of operation.
Nevertheless, as discussed above, Takahashi discloses that valve-body
pressing pin 203 on liquid accepter housing 200 can move back and forth.
10
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
Takahashi | 53. Takahashi discloses that when reservoir housing 100 is
connected to acceptor housing 200, pressing pin 203 presses valve body 50
against the force applied by spring 80, which causes valve body 50 to move
and open the seal formed at sealing face 53, allowing liquid from the
reservoir to flow to the liquid accepter. Takahashi | 54. Contrary to
Appellant’s arguments, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would
have understood from these disclosures that the two housings connect before
fuel flows to the liquid accepter. Appellant’s arguments are therefore
unpersuasive of reversible error.
Appellant further argues that “even applying a hindsight replacement
of Adams’ valve body 30 with Appellant’s first compression member (a
hindsight replacement that is neither taught nor suggested by any of the
references), the replacement of Adams’ valve body 30 with Appellant’s
compression member would render Adams unsuitable for its intended
purpose.” App. Br. 19.
However, as discussed above, the Examiner proposes adding
Takahashi’s labyrinth seal 15 to the outer end of Adams’ valve body 30 and
does not propose replacing “Adams’ valve body 30” with Appellant’s “first
compression member” as Appellant asserts. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 10.
Appellant’s arguments therefore fail to address the rejection as set forth by
the Examiner and are thus unpersuasive of reversible error.
Accordingly, we sustain we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—13 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Appeal 2016-006306
Application 12/828,077
DECISION
In view of the reasons set forth above and in the Final Action and the
Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—13 and 15—17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
12