Ex Parte Guthrie

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 22, 2011

10816403 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/816,403 04/01/2004 Robin J. Guthrie C-2480 9610
7590 04/25/2011
M. P. Williams
210 Main Street
Manchester, CT 06040
EXAMINER
WALKER, KEITH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ROBIN J. GUTHRIE
________________

Appeal 2010-003197
Application 10/816,403
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003197
Application 10/816,403

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

Appellant claims a fuel cell reactant gas flow field plate 82 for
inclusion in a stack of fuel cells to form a fuel cell power plant, the plate
having a plurality of grooves 101-103 forming reactant gas flow channels
98, each of the channels having a transverse portion 100 extending
substantially transversely of the longitudinal direction, and "characterized by
the improvement comprising: some, but less than all of said transverse
portions having more than one groove" (claim 1; Figs. 8-9).
Further details regarding this claimed subject matter are set forth in
representative claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, which reads as
follows:
1. A fuel cell reactant gas flow field plate for inclusion
in a stack of fuel cells to form a fuel cell power plant, said plate
having a plurality of grooves forming reactant gas flow
channels, said channels having inlet ends and outlet ends for
conducting reactant gas along a longitudinal flow direction
extending between said inlet ends and said outlet ends;
said flow field plate having a flow inlet edge and a flow
outlet edge, each of said channels including either or both of (a)
an inlet portion extending longitudinally from, at or near said
inlet edge and (b) an outlet portion extending longitudinally
from, at or near said outlet edge, each of said channels having a
transverse portion extending substantially transversely of said
longitudinal direction and in fluid communication either (c)
with only one of said inlet portions or only one of said outlet
portions, or (d) between one of said inlet portions and one of
Appeal 2010-003197
Application 10/816,403

3
said outlet portions, so that said inlet portions are laterally
offset from said outlet portions;
characterized by the improvement comprising:
some, but less than all of said transverse portions having
more than one groove.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of anticipation and obviousness:
Washington et al. US 5,300,370 Apr. 5, 1994
Fujii et al. US 6,255,011 B1 Jul. 3, 2001
Tawfik et al. US 2004/0101736 A1 May 27, 2004
Yamamoto et al. US 2004/0197633 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Yamamoto et al. WO 01/67532 A11 Sept. 13, 2001
The Examiner rejects the appealed claims as follows:
claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Yamamoto (i.e., WO 532);
claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamamoto in view of Tawfik or Washington;
claims 1, 2, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fujii;
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or alternatively
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Fujii; and
claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii in
view of Tawfik or Washington.

We will sustain these rejections for the reasons expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.

1 The Examiner relies on US 2004/0197633 A1 as the English equivalent of
WO 01/67532 A1.
Appeal 2010-003197
Application 10/816,403

4

The Rejections based on Yamamoto

As an initial matter, we observe that Appellant presents no arguments
specifically directed to the dependent claims under rejection including
separately rejected dependent claims 3 and 4. Accordingly, these dependent
claims will stand or fall with sole independent claim 1.
Appellant argues that "all the transverse portions have more than one
groove, and [therefore] Yamamoto cannot anticipate claim 1" (App. Br.
para. bridging 6-7).
This argument is not well taken. As most clearly revealed by the
Examiner in the Response to Argument section of the Answer, the plate of
Yamamoto contains plural transverse portions, some of which contain one
groove and others of which contain more than one groove (Ans. 10-11).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Yamamoto satisfies
the claim 1 limitation "some, but less than all of said transverse portions
having more than one groove."
In reply to the Examiner, Appellant contends that, in Yamamoto's
plate, "[t]here is only one transverse portion, and not one for each channel"
(Reply Br. para. bridging 3-4). This contention lacks convincing merit.
Contrary to Appellant's apparent belief, claim 1 does not require each
channel to have only a single transverse portion and conversely does not
exclude each channel from having multiple transverse portions.
For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, Appellant has failed
to reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's finding that claim 1 is
anticipated by Yamamoto. It follows that we sustain the § 102 rejection of
Appeal 2010-003197
Application 10/816,403

5
claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-9 as anticipated by Yamamoto as well as the § 103
rejections of claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of
Tawfik or Washington.

The Rejections based on Fujii

In contesting these rejections, Appellant presents arguments directed
to claims 1 and 5 only. No separate arguments have been presented for
dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9. As a consequence, these dependent claims
will stand or fall with their ultimate parent claim 1.
Appellant argues that Fujii does not anticipate the claim 1 limitation
"some, but less than all of said transverse portions having more than one
groove" (App. Br. 5-6). As support for this argument, Appellant relies on
Declarations of record under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by Robin J. Guthrie and
Jeffrey Lake (id.).
This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant as well as the
Declarations have misperceived the basis for Examiner's anticipation
finding. As shown by the Examiner's annotated reproduction of Fujii's
Figure 6, the Examiner's finding is based on the fact that a first transverse
section/portion of Fujii's plate contains only one groove whereas a second
different transverse section/portion contains a single groove which forms
into two grooves (Ans. 9). In light of this fact, the Examiner finds that some
but less than all of Fujii's transverse portions have more than one groove as
required by claim 1.
In reply, Appellant argues that, in order to anticipate claim 1, each of
Fujii's 6 channels "must have a transverse section and, in that transverse
Appeal 2010-003197
Application 10/816,403

6
section, 'some but less than all' of the channels must have more than one
groove" (Reply Br. para. bridging 2-3). However, Appellant has provided
no convincing explanation of why claim 1 must be interpreted in the manner
argued. It appears this argument is based on Appellant's incorrect belief
discussed earlier that claim 1 requires each channel to have only a single
transverse portion.
In light of the foregoing, Appellant has failed to show reversible error
in the Examiner's finding that claim 1 is anticipated by Fujii. We sustain,
therefore, the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7-9 as anticipated by Fujii
as well as the § 103 rejections of claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Fujii in
view of Tawfik or Washington.

Concerning the § 102 rejection of claim 5, the Examiner's anticipation
finding is based, inter alia, on the proposition that the ratio of channels to
grooves in both claim 1 and Fujii is 1 (Ans. 5). Appellant argues that the
Examiner's proposition is erroneous and accordingly that "Fujii cannot
anticipate claim 5" (App. Br. 7). According to Appellant, "[i]t is axiomatic
that since claim 1 (parent of claim 5) requires {line 13} 'some, but less than
all of said transverse portions having more than 1 [sic] groove' (Emphasis
added), the ratio of grooves to channels in the claimed invention must
always be greater than one" (id.).
The deficiency of this argument is that it is premised on the belief that
the above quoted claim 1 limitation requires more grooves than channels.
This belief is incorrect. As correctly indicated by the Examiner (Ans. para.
bridging 11-12), the claim 1 recitation "a plurality of grooves forming
reactant gas flow channels" establishes that the number of grooves and the
Appeal 2010-003197
Application 10/816,403

7
number of channels are the same since the channels are formed by the
grooves.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, Appellant has
revealed no reversible error in the Examiner's anticipation finding with
respect to claim 5. It follows that we sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 5
as anticipated by Fujii.

Concerning the Examiner's alternative § 103 rejection of claim 5
(Ans. 6), Appellant has not contested this rejection with any reasonable
specificity in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. That is, Appellant's
arguments concerning the rejection of claim 5 based on Fujii appear to be
directed solely to the § 102 rejection. As a consequence, we sustain the
alternative § 103 rejection of this claim without further comment.

Conclusion

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)(1).

AFFIRMED
bar