Ex Parte Fuller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12778470 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121778,470 05/12/2010 Timothy J. Fuller
104102 7590 03/30/2016
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
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.
P000102-FCAR-CHE 6498
EXAMINER
ZENG, LINGWEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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 TIMOTHY J. FULLER and VINOD KUMAR1
Appeal2014-008743
Application 12/778,470
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 15-18 and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify General Motors LLC as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 4.
Appeal2014-008743
Application 12/778,470
The subject matter involved in this appeal relates to a process for
making a fuel cell in which a polyolefin adhesive is applied to at least one
fuel cell stack component. Spec 1; App. Br. 5-7.2 Appellants direct their
arguments to independent claims 15, 23 and 25 which are reproduced from
the Claims Appendix3 of the Appeal Brief as follows:
15. A process of making a fuel cell stack comprising:
providing a plurality of fuel cell stack components
including at least a membrane electrode assembly, a bipolar
plate, and a gas diffusion medium;
applying a polyolefin adhesive to the peripheral area of at
least one of said fuel cell stack components; said polyolefin
adhesives having a bonding strength less than the cohesive
strength of any of said fuel cell stack components;
stacking said fuel cell stack components together to form
a fuel cell stack;
applying a compressive force to said fuel cell stack such
that said polyolefin adhesive bonds its neighboring fuel cell
stack components together, wherein said polyolefin adhesive
comprises an a-olefin polymer having at least one monomer
unit represented by the chemical formula
-CH1-CH-
~ s
I
~
R
carbon atoms.
, wherein R is an alkyl moiety having at least 3
2 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed May 12, 2010; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") entered Aug. 30, 2013; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.");
and Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.").
3 Appellants' Claims Appendix is inaccurate to the extent that it includes
claim 19, which was canceled, and omits claim 21, which is subject to this
appeal. Compare App. Br. 18-21 (Claims Appendix) with id. 4 (Status of
the Claims). We deem Appellants' error in the Claims Appendix to be
harmless and inconsequential.
2
Appeal2014-008743
Application 12/778,470
23. A process of making a fuel cell stack comprising:
providing a plurality of fuel cell stack components
including at least a membrane, a bipolar plate, and a gas
diffusion medium;
applying a polyolefin adhesive to the peripheral area of at
the bipolar plate and the membrane; said polyolefin adhesives
having a bonding strength less than the cohesive strength of any
of said fuel cell stack components;
stacking said fuel cell stack components together to form
a fuel cell stack;
applying a compressive force to said fuel cell stack such
that said polyolefin adhesive bonds its neighboring fuel cell
stack components together wherein said polyolefin adhesive
comprises an a-olefin polymer.
25. A process of making a fuel cell stack comprising:
providing a plurality of fuel cell stack components
including at least a membrane electrode assembly, a bipolar
plate, and a gas diffusion medium;
applying a polyolefin adhesive to the peripheral area of at
least one of said fuel cell stack components; said polyolefin
adhesives having a bonding strength less than the cohesive
strength of any of said fuel cell stack components;
stacking said fuel cell stack components together to form
a fuel cell stack;
applying a compressive force to said fuel cell stack such
that said polyolefin adhesive bonds its neighboring fuel cell
stack components together, wherein the polyolefin is a
homopolymer prepared from 1-hexene, 1-pentene,
1-isopentene, 1-octene, 1-decene, 3-methyl-1-butene, 4-methyl-
1-pentene, 1-heptene, 1-nonene, 1-dodecene. 1-undecene, 1-
tridecene, or 1-behenylene.
3
Appeal2014-008743
Application 12/778,470
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 4
I. Claims 15, 17 and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over Andrin. 5
II. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Andrin and Ludwig. 6
III. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Andrin and Okahisa. 7
DISCUSSION
I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants separately argue only
independent claims 15, 23 and 25. App. Br. 8-11. We select each of the
independent claims as representative and decide the propriety of Rejection I
as applied to any dependent claim based solely on the independent claim
from which it depends. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Thus, claims 17
and 20-22 stand or fall with claim 15, and claim 24 stands or falls with claim
23. Id.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings that Andrin
discloses a process for making a fuel cell stack comprising: providing a
plurality of fuel cell stack components including a membrane electrode
assembly, bipolar plate and gas diffusion medium; applying an adhesive to
the peripheral area of at least one fuel stack component; stacking the
4 Ans. 3-6; Final Act. 2-5.
5 US 2006/0073385 Al, published Apr. 6, 2006 ("Andrin").
6 US 2002/0022143 Al, published Feb. 21, 2002 ("Ludwig").
7 US 6,451,478 Bl, issued Sep. 17, 2002 ("Okahisa").
4
Appeal2014-008743
Application 12/778,470
components; and applying a compressive force to the stack such that the
adhesive bonds neighboring components. Compare Ans. 3-4 with App. Br.
8-13; Reply Br. 4-6.
Claim 15
With regard to claim 15, the Examiner found that Andrin discloses use
of an adhesive prepared from, e.g., ethylene/hexene copolymer, or
ethylene/octene copolymer, each of which the Examiner found to be an a-
olefin polymer having at least one monomer unit represented by the formula
, wherein R is an alkyl moiety having at least 3 carbon
atoms. Ans. 4 (citing Andrin ,-i 29).
Appellants do not dispute that the ethylene/hexene or ethylene/octene
copolymer identified in paragraph 29 of Andrin would include monomer
units represented by the claimed formula. 8 Rather, Appellants argue that the
polyolefins listed in paragraph 29 of Andrin "are merely used as a starting
component before being modified to the final adhesive which is used in
Andrin." App. Br. 8. Appellants particularly point to paragraph 32 of
Andrin where Andrin states:
In preferred embodiments of the present invention, acid, acid
anhydride, acid ester and metallocene modified polyolefin
adhesive sealant materials are used as sealing adhesive
materials in electrochemical cells.
App. Br. 9 (quoting Andrin ,-i 32).
8 Appellants disclose ethylene/hexene and ethylene/octene copolymers as
polyolefins which include the claimed monomer structure and are suitable
for use in the claimed invention. See Spec. ,-i,-i 23-24.
5
Appeal2014-008743
Application 12/778,470
However, Appellants do not point us to any evidence in support of the
contention that Andrin' s modified polyolefin would not include "at least one
monomer unit" represented by the formula set forth in claim 15. Neither do
Appellants argue that claim 15 precludes any of the acid, acid anhydride,
acid ester or metallocene functionalities disclosed in Andrin. Conversely,
Appellants' specification provides that a polymer having at least one
monomer unit as claimed can be formed by co-polymerizing, e.g., octene
with, e.g., maleic anhydride. Spec. iii! 23-24. Andrin identifies maleic
anhydride as a "particularly preferred" graft modification.
On this record, we are not persuaded of any reversible error in the
Examiner's finding that Andrin's ethylene/hexene copolymer or
ethylene/octene copolymer, even when modified by grafting with maleic
anhydride, constitutes an a-olefin polymer having at least one monomer unit
represented by the formula
-CH,-CH-
t~ i
I
R
, wherein R is an alkyl moiety having at least 3 carbon
atoms. 9
Neither are we persuaded by Appellants argument that Andrin's
paragraph 29 "merely discusses different polyolefin compositions
generally," whereas the polyolefins actually used in Andrin' s disclosed
9 Andrin also discloses an alternative, more economical adhesive film in
which the modified polyolefin is coextruded as a skin layer over other,
presumably unmodified polyolefins. See Andrin iJ 33. In such an
arrangement, the structure of the underlying polymer would be unaffected by
any acid, acid anhydride, acid ester or metallocene functionalities included
in the modified polyolefin skin layer.
6
Appeal2014-008743
Application 12/778,470
method are the polyethylene and polypropylene materials identified in
Andrin' s paragraph 30. Reply Br. 5-6. Andrin expressly characterizes the
polyolefins identified in paragraph 29 as those which are used "[i]n the
adhesive sealant materials of the present invention," Andrin ii 29, with the
noted polyethylene and polypropylene materials being identified as
"preferred embodiments," Andrin ii 30. Appellants' argument is
inconsistent with the express language in Andrin and therefore is not
persuasive.
Claims 23 and 25
Appellants solely rely upon the same arguments presented in
connection with claim 15 to contest the Examiner's rejection of each of
claims 23 and 25, App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6, which we find unpersuasive
for the foregoing reasons.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection I.
II, III
Because Appellants present no additional argument specifically
directed to the features recited in claim 16 or 18, we also sustain Rejections
II and III.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended 35 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
7