Ex Parte FISCHER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2018

13688964 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/688,964 11129/2012
22851 7590
Delphi Technologies LLC
P.O. Box 5052
MIC 483-400-402
Troy, MI 48007-5052
05/18/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BERNARD A. FISCHER
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.
DP-319627 3314
EXAMINER
LYNCH, VICTORIA HOM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2018 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):
kandace.k.powell@aptiv.com
patent@aptiv.com
michele. m. piscitelli @apti v .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARD A. FISCHER
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-10, and 17-20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Delphi Technologies, Inc., which, according to
the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Br. 3) filed April 28,
2016.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed November 29, 2012,
the Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated November 27, 2015, Appellant's
Appeal Brief (Br.) filed April 28, 2016, and the Examiner's Answer (Ans.)
dated December 7, 2016.
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of operating a fuel
cell system and fuel cell systems (see, e.g., claims 1 and 19). The Inventor
discloses that partial-oxidizing reformers are typically operated in a slightly
fuel-lean manner to prevent coking of anodes due to non-reformed
hydrocarbons. Spec. i-f 4. This operation leads to some degree of full
combustion of hydrocarbon and reformate within the reformer which,
according to the Inventor, is wasteful of fuel and creates additional heat that
must be removed. Id. The Inventor teaches that it is known to produce a
reformate via endothermic steam reforming in the presence of water but a
large heat exchanger is required to condense and recover water and supplied
water must be filtered and deionized, which add cost. Id. i-f 5. The Inventor
also teaches it is known to produce a reformate by endothermic reforming in
the presence of carbon dioxide, known as "dry reforming," but such a
process does not provide the anti-coking benefits of the water reforming
process during startup. Id. i-fi-16-7.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 3 Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method of operating a fuel cell system comprising a
catalytic reformer having an inlet and an outlet, and a fuel cell
assembly that comprises a plurality of fuel cells having
cathodes and anodes, an air passage in contact with the fuel cell
cathodes and having an air inlet and exhaust outlet, and a
reformate passage in contact with the fuel cell anodes and
having a reformate inlet and a tail gas outlet, the method
compnsmg:
(a) introducing fuel and air to the catalytic reformer inlet;
(b) operating the catalytic reformer to produce a
reformate stream comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide
3 Br. 23.
2
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
from the reformer outlet, the operation of the catalytic reformer
performed under partial oxidation conditions during a start-up
mode and under endothermic conditions during a steady state
mode;
( c) introducing reformate from the reformate stream to
the fuel cell assembly reformate inlet, and introducing air to the
fuel cell assembly air inlet to produce electricity, an air exhaust
stream from the fuel cell assembly air exhaust outlet, and a tail
gas stream from the fuel cell assembly tail gas outlet;
( d) introducing the tail gas stream to the reformer inlet;
( e) during the start-up mode: introducing oxygen to the
tail gas stream downstream of the fuel cell assembly tail gas
outlet and upstream of the reformer inlet; and
(t) reacting the oxygen introduced in ( e) with hydrogen
and carbon monoxide in the tail gas stream to produce water in
the tail gas stream.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kelly4 in view of Fischer; 5
II. claims 3-5, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kelly and Fischer and further in
view of Perna; 6
III. claim 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kelly in view of Kaupert; 7 and
IV. claim 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
4 Kelly et al., US 6,921,596 B2, issued July 26, 2005 ("Kelly").
5 Fischer, US 2007/0160880 Al, published July 12, 2007 ("Fischer").
6 Perna et al., US 2006/0029540 Al, published Feb. 9, 2006 ("Perna").
7 Kaupert, US 2009/0305097 Al, published Dec. 10, 2009 ("Kaupert").
3
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
over Kelly and Kaupert and further in view of Perna. 8
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kelly in view of Fischer. Appellant argues claims
1, 2, and 7 separately. Br. 9-14. Appellant does not argue claims 8-10
separately from claim 1. Id. at 13. Therefore, we treat claims 1 and 8-10 as
a first group, claim 2 as a second group, and claim 7 as a third group.
Claims 1 and 8-10
The Examiner finds Kelly discloses, among other things, a method for
using a fuel cell system having a catalytic reformer and a plurality of fuel
cells, the method including introducing fuel and air to an inlet of the
catalytic reformer, operating the catalytic reformer to produce a reformate
stream, introducing the reformate to a reformate inlet of the fuel cells,
introducing air to an air inlet of the fuel cells to produce electricity, and
exhausting a tail gas stream from a tail gas outlet of the fuel cells. Final Act.
3--4.
The Examiner finds Kelly does not disclose introducing the tail gas
stream to an inlet of the reformer. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds Fischer
discloses the introduction of recycled anode tail gas to a two-stage reformer
system to increase efficiency of the reformer while maintaining operability.
8 The Examiner states the § 103 rejection of claim 20 over Kelly in view of
Fischer and Perna was an oversight. Ans. 4. The Examiner further states
that because claim 20 is dependent on claim 19, claim 20 is rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelly in view ofKaupert and Perna.
Id. Appellant does not respond to or otherwise address the Examiner's
statement that claim 20 is rejected over Kelly, Kaupert, and Perna.
4
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Kelly in
view of Fischer to direct a tail gas stream to an inlet of Kelly's reformer to
increase efficiency of the reformer. Id.
Appellant contends that modifying Kelly (Fig. 2) in view of Fischer to
direct Kelly's tail gas stream to its reformer would have diverted the tail gas
stream away from its use to produce effluent 115,9 which is used to heat heat
exchangers 84, 92 and to heat fuel cell stacks 44, 46. Br. 9-10. In view of
this, Appellant asserts the proposed modification to Kelly's system would
have changed its principle of operation and would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 10. Appellant further argues three-way
valve 160 of Kelly is used to divert a portion of spent cathode air, not anode
tail gas, and there is no teaching or suggestion in the applied references that
it would have been acceptable to divert a portion of Kelly's anode tail gas
from combustor 66 or that such a modification would have achieved the
asserted benefit. Id. at 10-12. In addition, Appellant contends there would
have been a lack of a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 12-13.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Kelly discloses fuel cell
system 12 that includes fuel cell stacks 44, 46 receiving air feed 75 and
receiving reformate 108 from fuel reformer 106. Kelly 4:63---65, 5:3-39, and
Fig. 2. Unconsumed fuel 110 from the fuel cell anodes is fed to combustor
66 to be combined with air supply 64 and heated air 93 from fuel cell stacks
44, 46 for burning. Id. 5:39-41. Burned gases 112 from combustor 66 are
passed through cleanup catalyst 114 of reformer 106 and effluent 115 from
9 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
5
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
catalyst 114 is passed through the hot sides of heat exchangers 84, 92 before
being fed to manifold 120 surrounding fuel cell stacks 44, 46. Id. 5:43--49.
Fischer teaches that conventional partial catalytic oxidizing reformers
are not highly efficient. Fischer i-fi-1 2-3. Fischer discloses a need for a way
to increase reformer efficiency while maintaining system operability. Id.
i-fi-19-10. In view of this, Fischer discloses a two-stage reformer system
receiving a stream of about 35% to about 60% of the recycled tail gas. Id.
i-fi-137-38 and Fig. 8. Fischer states the system has efficiencies that surpass
those of simple partial catalytic oxidizing reformers. Id. i-fi-12, 38. Thus, the
disclosures of Kelly and Fischer support the Examiner's findings and
conclusion of obviousness.
In response to the Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds that not
all of the tail gas would be needed in Kelly's combustor and that
improvements in efficiency would still occur. Ans. 3. This finding is
supported by the Fischer's disclosure, which demonstrates that only a
portion of the recycled tail gas (e.g., about 35% to about 60% of the tail gas,
as depicted by curve 84 in Fig. 8) is needed to improve the efficiency of a
reformer while maintaining the operation of a system. Fischer i-fi-12, 10, 37-
38. Therefore, Fischer's disclosure provides a reason to modify Kelly's
system so a portion of anode tail gas 110 is diverted from combustor 66 to
reformer 106 to improve the latter's efficiency. Moreover, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that
diverting a portion of a tail gas stream would have increased reformer
efficiency without a significant impact to the operation of a fuel cell system
in view of Fischer's disclosure that this can be accomplished.
6
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
For these reasons and those set forth in the Final Office Action and
the Examiner's Answer, Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible
error the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 8-10.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites "further comprising
removing heat generated by the reaction of oxygen with hydrogen and
carbon monoxide from the reformate stream or the tail gas stream." Br. 24.
The Examiner finds heat generated by the reaction of oxygen with
hydrogen and carbon monoxide would be removed from Kelly's tail gas
stream 110 due to its use in combustor 66 with heated air 93 from fuel cell
stacks 44, 46 and with cooling air 64. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3.
Appellant asserts tail gas stream 110, heated air 93, and cooling air 64
are combusted within combustor 66, which does not remove heat. Br. 13-
14. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive. Claim 2 encompasses the
removal of any amount of heat from a reformate stream or a tail gas stream
at any point after the heat has been generated by the reaction of oxygen with
hydrogen and carbon monoxide of the respective stream. Thus, the mixture
of cooling air 64 with tail gas stream 110 within combustor 66 would be
encompassed by the scope of claim 2.
Moreover, heat generated by the combustion of tail gas stream 110,
and thus heat from the reaction of oxygen with hydrogen and carbon
monoxide in tail gas stream 110, is carried forth by hot burner gases 112
from combustor 66. Kelly teaches that hot burner gases 112 are passed
through cleanup catalyst 114 of the reformer and then passed on as effluent
115 to the hot sides of heat exchangers 84, 92 before reaching manifold 120
for fuel cell stacks 44, 46. Kelly 5:43--49. Thus, to any extent heat
7
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
generated by the reaction of oxygen with hydrogen and carbon monoxide is
not removed from tail gas stream 110 at combustor 66, heat is removed at
reformer 106, heat exchangers 84, 92, and manifold 120. As a result,
Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the rejection of
claim 2.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein oxygen is
introduced to the tail gas stream at a rate sufficient to react with all of the
hydrogen and carbon monoxide therein." Br. 24.
The Examiner finds oxygen would be introduced to Kelly's tail gas
stream 110 at a rate sufficient to react with all of the hydrogen and carbon
monoxide therein. Final Act. 5.
Appellant asserts Kelly is silent about oxygen being introduced to tail
gas stream 110 at a rate sufficient to react with all of the hydrogen and
carbon monoxide therein, as recited in claim 7. Br. 14.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner cites Kelly's
oxygen getter device 124 as an indication of the amount of oxygen present
and finds it would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to
expect that oxygen would be introduced at a sufficient amount to react with
all of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide in tail gas stream 110. Ans. 3--4.
Kelly discloses oxygen getters 124, 126 in the passageway for
reformate 108 and the passageway for tail gas stream 110. Kelly 6:4--12.
Thus, Kelly's disclosure supports the Examiner's finding and the Examiner
has set forth a reasonable basis for oxygen being introduced into the tail gas
stream at a sufficient rate, as recited in claim 7. Appellant does not respond
8
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
to the Examiner's finding or otherwise identify a reversible error in the
rejection of claim 7.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7-10
over Kelly and Fischer.
Rejection II
Claims 3-5, 17, and 18 are rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kelly and Fischer and further in view of Perna.
Appellant argues claim 4 separately. As noted below, the Examiner states
claim 20 is rejected under§ 103(a) over Kelly, Kaupert, and Perna. Ans. 4.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein sufficient
heat is removed to maintain the temperature of metal components in contact
with the reformate stream at a temperature at or below 800°C." Br. 24.
Appellant contends the Examiner has made no showing that the
applied references teach or suggest that sufficient heat is removed to
maintain the temperature of metal components in contact with the reformate
stream at or below 800°C, as recited in claim 4. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds Perna discloses the use of partial oxidation
chambers downstream of a reformer to remove heat and lower operating
temperature in order to prevent the formation of carbon (i.e., soot) within a
system, with the number of stages affecting the operating temperature. Final
Act. 6-7; Ans. 4--5. Paragraphs 7 and 15 of Perna's disclosure support the
Examiner's findings. Thus, the Examiner has determined that Perna teaches
operating temperature as a result-effective variable that is affected by the
9
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
number of operating stages, with the object being a lower operating
temperature to avoid carbon accumulation. Perna demonstrates it would
have been obvious to modify the number of operating stages to optimize
operating temperature and avoid carbon accumulation. "[D]iscovery of an
optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily
within the skill of the art." In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
As a result, it would have been obvious to modify the arrangement
and number of partial oxidation stages of Kelly, as modified in view of
Fischer and Perna, to lower operating temperature and to prevent carbon
formation, thus arriving at a process within the scope of claim 4.
Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 4.
Claims 3, 5, 17, and 18
Appellant does not argue claims 3, 5, 1 7, and 18 separately. Br. 14--
16. Appellant contends Perna does not remedy the deficiencies of the
references applied in the rejection of claim 1. Id. For the reasons set forth
above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing
by Perna.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 3-5, 17, and 18
over Kelly, Fischer, and Perna.
Re} ection III
Claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kelly in view of Kaupert.
10
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
The Examiner finds Kelly discloses the system of claim 19 but does
not disclose the combustor configuration recited in claim 19. Final Act. 9-
10. The Examiner finds Kaupert discloses a fuel cell system in which a
combustor has a tail gas inlet in fluid communication with a fuel cell tail gas
outlet, an air inlet, and an outlet in fluid communication with a reformer
inlet. Id. at 10. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
modify Kelly in view of Kaupert to promote operational stability. Id.
Appellant sets forth arguments for the rejection of claim 19 similar to
those asserting for the rejection of claim 1 (e.g., that the modification of
Kelly in view of Kaupert would have changed the principle of operation of
Kelly, that there is no teaching in the applied reference that such an
alteration would have been acceptable, and that there would have been a lack
of a reasonable expectation of success). Br. 17-21.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Initially, we note that Kelly
discloses a fuel cell system including reformer 106 having catalyst 104.
Kelly 5:35-38 and Fig. 2. The system further includes fuel cells 11 each
having cathodes 18 and anodes 16, passageways 24 and 26 for air or
reformate (with inlets on the left hand side of Figure 1 and outlets on the
right hand side), and the cells are arranged in stacks 44, 46 that receive
reformate 108 from reformer 106. Id. 3:66-67, 4: 1---6, 4:37---62, 5:35-38
Figs. 1-2. The system further includes combustor 66 that receives tail gas
110 (i.e., unconsumed fuel), heated air 93 from fuel cell stacks 44, 46, and
air 64 to produce hot burner gases 112 that are passed through cleanup
catalyst 114 of reformer 106. Id. 5:39-44 and Fig. 2. Thus, Kelly's system
comprises each of the recited elements of claim 19, including a combuster
having a tail gas inlet in fluid communication with the fuel cell assembly tail
11
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
gas outlet, an air inlet, and an outlet in fluid communication with the
reformer inlet.
Moreover, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
position that claim 19 would have been obvious over the combination of
Kelly and Kaupert. Kaupert discloses that recycling burner waste gas to a
fuel cell system reformer increases the efficiency of the reformer. Kaupert
i-f 8. To accomplish this, Kaupert discloses system 2 in which residual gas
burner 26 receives anode waste gas from fuel cell 18 via anode waste gas
line 46 and burner 26 produces burner waste gas that is recycled to an inlet
of reformer 22. Id. i-fi-1 21, 23-2 7. Kaupert shows a junction on anode waste
gas line 46 between fuel cell 18 and burner 26. Id. Fig. 1. Thus, Kaupert's
disclosure suggests a portion of the anode waste can be diverted to a burner
and a fuel cell system can be successfully operated while improving the
efficiency of a reformer, as taught by Kaupert. As a result, Kaupert's
disclosure supports the Examiner's finding and conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Kelly
in view of Kaupert.
Rejection IV
Claim 20 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kelly in view of Kaupert and Perna.
Appellant argues Kelly does not disclose the combustor configuration
recited in claim 19 and that Perna fails to remedy the deficiencies of Kelly.
12
Appeal2017-007818
Application 13/688,964
Br. 16. However, as set forth above, Appellant's argument that Kelly fails to
disclose the combustor configuration recited in claim 19 is not persuasive of
reversible error. Therefore, there are no deficiencies in Kelly, or the
combination of Kelly and Kaupert, that require curing by Perna. As a result,
Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 20.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
13