Ex Parte Folmsbee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 8, 201612580912 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/580,912 10/16/2009 65798 7590 02/09/2016 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD A VENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Daniel T. Folmsbee 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. P010239-FCA-CHE 1430 EXAMINER MCDERMOTT, HELENM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1727 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2016 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 GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES T. MOORE, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 I. Statement of the Case 1 GM Global Technology Operations, LLC ("Appellant"), the real party in 2 interest (Appeal Brief ("App. Br."), page 3), seeks review under 35 U.S.C. 3 § 134(a) of a final rejection dated 30 August 2013. 4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). 5 The application on appeal was filed in the USPTO on 16 October 2009. 6 The application on appeal has been published as U.S. Patent Application 7 Publication 2011/0091781 Al (21April2011). 8 The subject matter of the application is a method and system for control of 9 the reconditioning of fuel cells, the conditioning occurring while in use during Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 vehicle operations. Specification i-f 0001. This reconditioning is to fix certain 2 types of reversible issues with a fuel cell stack that cause loss of performance, such 3 as dried membranes, catalyst oxide formation, and contaminant build up. Id. 4 ,-r 0008. The Examiner relies on the following evidence in support of the rejections. Wilkinson et al. U.S. Patent 6,096,448 01Aug.2000 "Wilkinson" Jia et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 04 Dec. 2003 "Jia" US 2003/0224226 Al Pettit et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 15 Nov. 2007 "Pettit" US 2007 /0265802 Al 5 Appellant does not contest the prior art status of the Examiner's evidence, all 6 of which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 7 II. Claims on Appeal 8 Claims 1-20 are on appeal. App. Br., page 3; Answer, pages 2, 10, and 13. 9 III. The Rejections 10 In the Answer, the Examiner has maintained the following rejections: 11 Rejection 1 12 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as 13 being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject 14 matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Answer, page 2. 15 Rejection 2 16 Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-20 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 17 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pettit and Wilkinson. Answer, page 10. 2 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 Rejection 3 2 Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 3 over Pettit, Wilkinson, and Jia. Answer, page 13. 4 IV. Analysis 5 Claims 6 Claims 1 and 16 are representative of the subject matter on appeal, and 7 reproduced below. 8 1. A method for reconditioning a fuel cell stack, said method 9 compnsmg: 10 determining whether fuel cell stack reconditioning is required based 11 on a plurality of reconditioning triggers, wherein the plurality of 12 reconditioning triggers includes one or more of low stack voltages, low stack 13 humidity levels, and low stack power; 14 determining if predetermined system constraints are met that will 15 allow reconditioning of the fuel cell stack to occur, wherein the 16 predetermined system constraints include determining whether fuel cell 17 stack temperature is less than a predetermined minimum threshold; 18 determining whether previous reconditioning processes have been 19 attempted, and if so, whether predetermined reconditioning limits have been 20 exceeded; 21 determining to proceed with the fuel cell stack reconditioning if one 22 or more of the reconditioning triggers has occurred, the predetermined 23 system constraints are met and the predetermined reconditioning limits have 24 not been exceeded; and 25 performing the fuel cell stack reconditioning by increasing the 26 humidification level of a cathode side of the fuel cell stack over the humidity 27 level of the cathode side during normal operating conditions and waiting for 28 cell membranes in the fuel cell stack to saturate after the humidification 29 level of the cathode side has increased. 30 3 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 16. A system for reconditioning a fuel cell stack, said system 2 compnsmg: 3 means for determining whether fuel cell stack reconditioning is 4 required based on a plurality of reconditioning triggers, wherein the plurality 5 of reconditioning triggers includes one or more of low stack voltages, low 6 stack humidity levels, and low stack power; 7 means for determining if predetermined system constraints are met 8 that will allow reconditioning of the fuel cell stack to occur, wherein the 9 predetermined system constraints include determining whether fuel cell 10 stack temperature is less than a predetermined minimum threshold; 11 means for determining whether previous reconditioning processes 12 have been attempted, and if so, whether predetermined reconditioning limits 13 have been exceeded; 14 means for determining to proceed with the fuel cell stack 15 reconditioning if one or more of the reconditioning triggers has occurred, the 16 predetermined system constraints are met and the predetermined 1 7 reconditioning limits have not been exceeded; and 18 means for performing the fuel cell stack reconditioning by increasing 19 the humidification level of a cathode side of the fuel cell stack over the 20 humidity level of the cathode sides during normal operating conditions and 21 \~1aiting for cell membranes in the fuel cell stack to saturate after the 22 humidification level of the cathode side has increased. 23 24 Rejection 1- Indefiniteness 25 When considering patentability, the Patent and Trademark Office interprets 26 claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Packard, 751F.3d1307, 27 1323-1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This enables the applicant to sharpen and clarify the 28 claims at the application stage. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 29 2007). 30 The legal standard for definiteness in prosecution is whether a claim 31 reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F .3d 4 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "[D]efiniteness of the language employed must be 2 analyzed - not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art 3 and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one 4 possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art." In re Moore, 439 F.2d 5 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). 6 The Supreme Court has recently held that, in a litigation context, 35 U.S.C. 7 § 112 i-f 2 "require[s] that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and 8 prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention 9 with reasonable certainty." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 10 2120, 2123 (2014). 11 Accordingly, during prosecution, the inquiry made by the Examiner is 12 focused upon whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject 13 matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. See, e.g. MPEP 14 2173.02. 15 The Examiner found that the claims on appeal were indefinite for multiple 16 distinct issues. Final Rej. 2-10. 17 For example, the Examiner has found the limitation "determining whether 18 fuel cell stack reconditioning is required based on a plurality of reconditioning 19 triggers" to be indefinite. More specifically, the Examiner has found that this 20 limitation in claims 1, 10, and 16 is indefinite because the claims do not 21 specifically set out what the plurality of reconditioning triggers are, and how a 22 determination is made based upon those triggers. Final Rej. 2. According to the 23 Examiner, it is impossible to ascertain what exactly is being claimed. Final Rej. 3. 5 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 The Appellant urges that the Specification sets forth that algorithms 2 determine if stack reconditioning may be needed (Specification i-f 0023) based upon 3 factors such as low voltage, low humidity levels, and low stack power 4 (Specification i-f 0035). App. Br. 9--10. 5 We observe that each of claims 1, 10, and 16 includes language delineating 6 the triggers. For example, claim 1 recites that the "triggers" include one or more of 7 "low stack voltages, low stack humidity levels, and low stack power." App. Br. 8 32. We therefore focus on those "defined" triggers. 9 The Examiner is likewise dissatisfied with the clarity of these terms, as they 10 are relative terms. Ans. 4--5. The Appellant's position on appeal is that the 11 Specification paragraph 0035 describes that a stack polarization curve or other 12 stack information can be used, such as stack voltage. Further, it is urged that 13 "complex algorithms may be used to monitor conditions such as low voltage to 14 determine when to trigger stack reconditioning." App. Br. 13. Thus, according to 15 Appellant "'determining whether a low stack voltage ... is occurring' is clear." Id. 16 at 14. 1 7 We are presented then with the question as to whether one of ordinary skill 18 in the art reasonably would be able to determine what the claimed low stack 19 voltage, humidity level, or power level is, in the context of a reconditioning trigger 20 in a fuel cell stack. These are all words of degree, and definiteness problems often 21 arise when words of degree are used in a claim. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial 22 Crating & Packing, Inc., 731F.2d818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 23 Appellant has pointed us to the algorithm. App. Br. 9, citing Specification 24 i-f 0023. We reproduce that paragraph below: 6 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 [0023] Figure 2 is a flow diagram 40 showing steps for reconditioning the 2 fuel cell stack 12, thereby enabling recovery of the voltage of the fuel cell 3 stack 12. A system start is the first step at box 42. The controller 36 4 determines whether reconditioning of the fuel cell stack 12 is needed at 5 decision diamond 44. The present invention contemplates any suitable 6 algorithm or device that can detect the affects from stack contaminants that 7 may require stack reconditioning, such as low voltages, low humidity levels, 8 low stack power, etc. If the controller 36 determines that reconditioning of 9 the fuel cell stack 12 is not needed at the decision diamond 44, then the 10 controller 36 does not enable the reconditioning procedure and the fuel cell 11 system 10 operates under normal operating conditions at box 46. 12 13 Appellant has also cited us to paragraph 35 as defining the triggers for 14 reconditioning. App. Br. 9--10. We reproduce that below in full: 15 [0035] Figure 3 is a flow chart diagram 60 including some of the algorithm 16 discussed above, including when to enter the reconditioning process and 17 whether certain system constraints prevent the reconditioning process. The 18 flowchart diagram 60 shows a number of possible reconditioning algorithm 19 event triggers, including the number of drives since the last reconditioning 20 process at box 62. The algorithm can set a reconditioning event trigger if the 21 vehicle has been driven a certain number of times based on experimental 22 data as to when reconditioning would be the most beneficial. Further, 23 another possible trigger is the time since the last reconditioning process at 24 box 64. Regardless of the number of times the vehicle has been driven, it 25 may be desirable to perform the reconditioning process based on time alone. 26 The reconditioning process may also be triggered based on performance at 27 box 66, where the stack polarization curve or other stack information, such 28 as cell voltage, can be monitored to determine when reconditioning may be 29 required because of low stack performance. Further, complex algorithms at 30 box 68 can be used to monitor various fuel cell systems and stack 31 conditions, such as low voltage conditions, dry-out conditions of stack 32 membrane, high frequency resistance (HFR) conditions of fuel cells, etc. to 33 determine when the reconditioning process is desirable. Also, any other 34 suitable methodology at box 70 for entering the reconditioning process can 7 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 be monitored. If any of these triggers occurs, then the algorithm may set a 2 recondition required flag at box 72. 3 An automobile or other vehicle itself is subject to many design parameters 4 and use parameters. A vehicle may be built for speed, towing capacity, durability 5 considerations, safety, or mileage capacity, among others, and used in many 6 different manners. See, e.g., Pettit i-f 0025. Each consideration may impact power 7 considerations and what one of ordinary skill in the art regards as "low" or 8 "normal" for the fuel cell in any given situation. Id. i-fi-10008, 0024. Some 9 situations might tolerate lower levels than others, and appear to be subjective 10 depending on the mindset of the person programming the triggers. Neither 11 paragraph 0023 nor paragraph 0035 helps us determine what is "low." 12 Appellant urges that it 13 amended claims 1 and 16 in the response filed May 02, 2013 to 14 include "wherein the plurality of reconditioning triggers includes one 15 or more of low stack voltages, low stack humidity levels, and low 16 stack power.'' For the reasons discussed above, this amendment is 1 7 supported by the specification. Original claim 10 describes what the 18 plurality of reconditioning triggers include, thus Appellant submits 19 that the language of claim 10 is clear. 20 21 App. Br. 10. This is conclusory attorney argument, and not supported by adequate 22 evidence in the record. App. Br. 38. 23 Similarly, "predetermined freeze protection constraints" (claims 3, 10, and 24 18) (Ans. 6.) "stack stability" (Ans. 6), "stack membrane dry-out" (claims 2, 10, 25 and 17) (Ans. 6), "fuel cell system performance" (Ans. 5), "normal operating 26 conditions" (claims 1, 10, and 16) (Ans. 4), "low stack voltage" (claims 1, 2, 10, 8 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 16, and 17 (Ans. 4), "system constraints" (claims 1, 10, and 16) "predetermined 2 reconditioning limits" (claims 1, 10, and 16) (Ans. 3), "low stack humidity levels" 3 (claims 1 and 16) (Ans. 4); "determining whether fuel cell system performance is 4 below predetermined limits" (claims 2, 10, and 17) (Ans. 5); "determining whether 5 stack stability meets a minimum criteria" (claims 3, 10, and 18) (Ans. 6) 6 "determining whether predetermined freeze protection constraints are met" (claims 7 3, 10, and 18) (Ans. 6), and the remainder noted by the Examiner (Ans. 6-10) as 8 used in claims each have a subjective component to them based upon the usage of 9 the fuel cell or risk tolerance of the algorithm programmer. 10 Appellant again argues that the terms are clear, stating repeatedly that in 11 light of the disclosure and interpretation that would be given by one of ordinary 12 skill in the art, the term is clear. See, e.g., App. Br. 10-21. 13 We have no doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art, provided with 14 appropriate parameters, could set, what is specifically to them, a low voltage, 15 humidity, or other trigger as needed in their individual judgment. We also have no 16 doubt one could program in what they would call system constraints and normal 17 conditions. But we also observe that the Examiner concluded that the same person 18 of ordinary skill cannot reasonably determine where and under what conditions 19 those triggers and barriers should be set based upon the instant claims, as informed 20 by the instant Specification. Final Rej. 2-10. 21 We are provided with no persuasive argument or evidence that these 22 nebulous terms have sufficient meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art such that 23 one would be apprised of the scope of the claims. As a consequence, we conclude 9 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 the Examiner did not err in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art is not 2 apprised of the metes and bounds of these claims. 3 We do disagree with some specific findings which are not subject to 4 subjective interpretation. Specifically, we reverse the conclusion that "determining 5 whether the number of vehicle drives since a last fuel cell stack reconditioning has 6 exceeded a predetermined number" (claims 2, 10, and 17) (Ans. 5) is indefinite. A 7 number can be set and then exceeded, and one of ordinary skill in the art is 8 apprised reasonably of the claim language in this instance. The same reasoning 9 applies to "determining whether a predetermined time since the last reconditioning 10 has been exceeded" (claims 2, 10, and 17) (Ans. 5). A time can be set and then 11 exceeded. Likewise for "determining whether the fuel level of the vehicle is below 12 a predetermined fuel level." (Claims 3, 10, and 18) (Ans. 6). The limitation of 13 "determining if the number of previous reconditioning processes exceeded a 14 threshold" (claims 4, 11, and 19) (Ans. 7) is likewise reasonably clear, as is "the 15 temperature of the fuel cell stack falls below a predetermined minimum 16 temperature" (claims 7 and 13) (Ans. 9). However, each of claims 1-20 still suffer 17 from the remaining infirmities identified by the Examiner in the Final Rejection, 18 which have not been overcome by the Appellant by amendment or sufficient 19 evidence. 20 Rejection 1 is therefore affirmed. 21 Rejection 2 - Pettit and Wilkinson 22 Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being 23 unpatentable over Pettit and Wilkinson. 24 The Examiner found that Pettit describes a fuel cell system including 10 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 "an algorithm for operating the fuel cells in a dry operating mode, wherein the 2 algorithm determines if the minimum sustainable relative humidity is greater than a 3 predetermined relative humidity. If it is, then the algorithm switches to a wet 4 operating mode by increasing the humidification level." Final Rej. 10, citing Pettit 5 i-fi-10027---0028. The Examiner additionally found that the "algorithm also checks 6 various system constraints to see if the system can be operated in the wet mode, as 7 well as the history of previous wet mode operations to ensure that a limit number 8 of wet modes have not occurred." Id., citing i-fi-10025---0026 and 0029---0039. 9 Wilkinson has been found to describe hydrating the membrane of a fuel cell 10 to a two phase flow which allows the membrane to saturate results in anode 11 starvation. Such starvation has further been found to cause the oxidation and 12 removal of electrocatalyst poisons from the anode and provide improved fuel cell 13 performance by reconditioning. Final Rej. 11, citing Wilkinson, Abstract and 14 9:50-60. 15 The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary 16 skill in the art at the time of invention to recondition a fuel cell stack by 17 performing the algorithm of Pettit, by also waiting for the cell membranes to 18 saturate in wet operation mode, as taught by Wilkinson, in order to oxidize and 19 remove electrocatalyst poisons. Final Rej. 11. In the analysis, the Examiner 20 equates the step in the algorithm of Pettit of determining if the minimum 21 sustainable relative humidity is greater than a predetermined relative humidity to 22 be considered a step of determining whether fuel cell stack reconditioning is 23 required based on a plurality of reconditioning triggers. Id. 11 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 Appellant initially urges that "'[t]he mere fact that the prior art could be so 2 modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art 3 suggested the desirability of the modification.' See In re Laskowski, 871 F .2d 4 115, 10 USPQ2d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 5 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See also Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 6 774 F .2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985)." App. Br. 24--25. 7 This first argument lacks persuasive legal merit, as these cases, and the 8 principle relied upon, predate the landmark decision KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 9 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) which expressly disavowed the rigid application of a 10 suggestion requirement. 11 Instead, a claim is unpatentable under§ 103(a) ifthe differences between the 12 claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, 13 would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having 14 ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. 15 The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual 16 determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any 17 differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of 18 skill in the art; and ( 4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. 19 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). 20 Moreover, for an obviousness analysis, prior art references must be 21 "considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent 22 art." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour, 23 571F.2d559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). Moreover, "it is proper to take into account not 24 only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in 12 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 2 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). That is because an obviousness analysis "need not seek 3 out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged 4 claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a 5 person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. 6 The Appellant urges that the Examiner has not adequately set forth a prima 7 facie case of how the method of reducing relative humidity cycling, as described 8 by Pettit, combined with the localized anode starvation of Wilkinson, teaches or 9 suggests Appellant's claim. App. Br. 25. More specifically, it is urged that neither 10 Pettit or Wilkinson describe performing the fuel cell stack reconditioning by 11 increasing the humidification level of a cathode side of the fuel cell stack over the 12 humidity level of the cathode side during normal operating conditions and waiting 13 for cell membranes in the fuel cell stack to saturate after the humidification of the 14 cathode side has increased. Id. 15 We observe that the Examiner found Wilkinson describes hydrating the 16 membrane of a fuel cell to a two phase flow results in anode starvation, which 1 7 causes the oxidation and removal of electrocatalyst poisons from the anode, and 18 improved fuel cell performance. Final Rej. 11, citing Wilkinson Abstract, 9: 50- 19 60. The Examiner has determined that this is saturating the membrane and that the 20 Wilkinson step reconditions the fuel cell. Final Rej. 11. 21 The Examiner then concluded that 22 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the 23 time of invention that a fuel cell stack could be reconditioned by 24 performing the algorithm of Pettit, when the step of increasing the 25 humidification level to a wet operating mode involves waiting for the 13 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 cell membranes to saturate, as taught by Wilkinson, in order to 2 oxidize and remove electrocatalyst poisons. 3 4 Final Rej. 11. 5 However, the Appellant urges that maintaining a sustainable relative 6 humidity is not the same as performing fuel cell stack reconditioning by increasing 7 the humidification level of a cathode side. App. Br. 25-26. The Appellant also 8 points out that starving an anode of fuel by flowing oxidant which contains water 9 to fuel flow fields does not disclose increasing the humidification level of a 10 cathode side and waiting for membranes to saturate. Id. 11 We are inclined to agree with the Appellant on this point. 12 The crux of the Examiner's reasoning is that Wilkinson describes saturating 13 the membranes. We reproduce the portion of Wilkinson relied upon below: 14 The fuel stream and the substantially fuel-free liquid may be in 15 different phases. For example, the fuel stream could be gaseous 16 hydro gen or reformate and the substantially fuel-free fluid could be 1 7 liquid water. In conventional fuel cells, it is considered important to 18 manage water inside the fuel to sufficiently hydrate the membrane and 19 avoid two phase flow since water in the fuel stream inhibits the 20 diffusion of fuel to the anode. According to the present method, an 21 object of the method is to inhibit the supply of fuel to starve at least a 22 portion of the anode. 23 24 Wilkinson 9:50-60. 25 26 We do not see how these pulses of fuel-free liquid (including water) describe 2 7 saturating the cathode "by increasing the humidification level of a cathode side of 2 8 the fuel cell stack over the humidity level of the cathode side during normal 14 Appeal2014-005656 Application 12/580,912 1 operating conditions and waiting for cell membranes in the fuel cell stack to 2 saturate after the humidification level of the cathode side has increased" as claimed 3 in claims 1, 10, and 16. We are also not sure how one of skill in the art would 4 combine these pulses with Pettit's description of maintaining a wet or dry 5 operation of all the cells in the stack. Pettit i-f 20. 6 Accordingly, we determine that the evidence does not support the rejection 7 as articulated. We therefore reverse this rejection. 8 Rejection 3 - Claims 8 and 14 over Pettit, Wilkinson, and Jia 9 This rejection relies upon the combination of Pettit and Wilkinson as noted 10 above, but also with Jia which is said to describe exposing the cathode to a 11 reductant such as hydrogen. Final Rej. 13. This, however, does not address the 12 infirmity in the combination of Pettit and Wilkinson 13 Rejection 3 is therefore likewise reversed. 14 V. Decision 15 Upon consideration of the appeal, and for the reasons given herein, it is 16 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 1 7 under § 112 based on indefiniteness is affirmed. 18 FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting 19 claims 1-20 under § 103 over the prior art is reversed. 20 FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any 21 subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 22 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). 23 AFFIRMED 24 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation