Ex Parte Gangwar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2016

12145961 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/145,961 06/25/2008
28395 7590 04/19/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans Buus Gangwar
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.
81171490 4220
EXAMINER
HOANG, TUBA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS BUUS GANGW AR
Appeal2013-010193
Application 12/145 ,961
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hans Buus Gangwar ("Appellant") seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-17. Appeal Br. 2--4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-010193
Application 12/145,961
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention relates to "automotive rotatable power transfer
systems." Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent and claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A rotating power transfer system for an automotive fuel
cell vehicle including a fuel cell stack, the system comprising:
one of an impeller and turbine in fluid communication
with the fuel cell stack;
an electric machine including a stator coil;
a shaft operatively associated with the one of impeller and
turbine; and
a heating element disposed within the shaft and configured
to be selectively electrically coupled with the stator coil.
Appeal Br. V., Claims App.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Edwards (US 6,720,102 B2, issued Apr. 13, 2004) and
Albaric (US 4,200,784, issued Apr. 29, 1980). Final Act. 2 (dated Sept. 14,
2012).
II. Claims 4--9 and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edwards, Albaric, and Winslow (US 2,639, 134, issued
May 19, 1953). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Claims 1-3 and 10 as Unpatentable
In rejecting claims 1-3 and 10, the Examiner found that Edwards
teaches a rotating system for an automotive fuel cell vehicle including fuel
cell stack 32, with the system comprising, inter alia, an impeller and turbine
2
Appeal2013-010193
Application 12/145,961
(motor means 5 0) in fluid communication with the fuel cell stack. Final Act.
2 (citing Edwards, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner found, however, that Edwards
failed to teach the claimed heating element. Id. Figure 1 of Edwards is
reproduced below:
AA r2
SffF!G. T\
10 r SEE F/6 6
"\.
'
~~~~~~~~,,,__~~~-
~-··-;-
' AIR
~L
FIGol
Figure 1 depicts fuel cell blade assemblies 3 2 that are mounted on and
secured to shaft 26 so as to rotate therewith. Edwards, col. 3, 11. 34--36.
Fuel cells 32 provide the electrical power for motor means 50. Id. at col. 5,
11. 1--4. The rotation of fuel cells 32 "slings water away" with centrifugal
force to keep the surface of the fuel cells' cathodes free of water and to
ensure that air and oxygen are in contact with the cathode. See id. at col. 1,
11. 50-57.
The Examiner relied on Albaric for teaching "a heating element" and
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to include
Albaric's heating element "in order to provide for increased temperature
control" (Final Act. 2-3), "thereby mitigat[ing] the freezing effects of water"
(Ans. 6), as Edwards' "configuration is vulnerable to freezing" (id.). In the
3
Appeal2013-010193
Application 12/145,961
Answer, the Examiner further explained that "integrating Albaric' s electric
heating element into the rotating fuel cell as taught by Edwards [] would
result in a configuration in which the heating element relies on power
generated by the rotating fuel cell." Ans. 5 (emphasis added) (citing
Edwards col. 4, 1. 60-col. 5, 1. 5).
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that the Examiner's
proposed combination is "not practical," as "Edwards' rotating fuel cell
would be unable to power the heating element when frozen-rendering the
heating element effectively useless." Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 5---6).
Appellant's argument is persuasive.
The Examiner's rejection relies on Edwards' rotatable fuel cell 32 to
generate electricity for powering the heating element when Edwards'
configuration is frozen (Ans. 5-6), but the Examiner has failed to explain
adequately how Edwards' rotatable fuel cell 32 can generate electricity when
it is frozen and presumably unable to rotate or covered with ice. For us to
sustain the Examiner's rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible
speculation that Edwards' rotatable fuel cell 32 would generate electricity
when the system is frozen and hence not rotatable, or that the Examiner had
some other rationale in mind when making the rejection. In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of
supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions
or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.").
For the foregoing reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3
and 10 as unpatentable over Edwards and Albaric.
4
Appeal2013-010193
Application 12/145,961
Rejection II: Claims 4-9 and 11-17 as Unpatentable
The rejection of claims 4--9 and 11-17 is based on the same
unsupportable combination of Edwards and Albaric relied on and discussed
supra with respect to Rejection I, namely, that it would have been obvious to
modify Edwards to include Albaric' s heating element to mitigate freezing.
See Final Act. 3 (relying on the teachings from Rejection I in supporting
Rejection II). Therefore, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 4--9 and 11-17 as unpatentable over Edwards, Albaric, and
Winslow.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards and Albaric is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 4--9 and 11-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards, Albaric, and Winslow is
reversed.
REVERSED
5