Ex Parte Hobmeyr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12107967 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/107,967 04/23/2008 Ralph T. J. Hobmeyr
104102 7590 06/17/2016
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.
GP-308206-FCAD-CHE 1688
EXAMINER
PARSONS, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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 RALPH T.J. HOBMEYR and DIRK WEXEL
Appeal2014-010000
Application 12/107,967
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETERF. KRATZ, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-9. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a fuel cell system
including a cooling system having a cooling fluid conduit wrapped around a
portion of a pressure relief valve for a fuel cell coolant reservoir tank and a
method for heating such a cooling system pressure relied valve with fuel cell
stack cooling fluid flowed through a conduit wrapped around the valve.
According to Appellants, providing a coolant system that has a cooling fluid
conduit wrapped around the pressure relief valve introduces a configuration
for heating the valve with the cooling fluid and thereby prevents freezing of
Appeal2014-010000
Application 12/107,967
water vapor that can accumulate on a surface of the valve, which can
militate against the valve sticking in a closed position (Spec. i-fi-f 14, 15).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A product comprising:
a fuel cell system including a cooling system constructed and arranged
to flow cooling fluid through a fuel cell stack to cool the fuel cell stack, the
cooling system comprising a fuel cell coolant tank reservoir having an
opening and a pressure release valve constructed and arranged to be in a
closed position when the pressure in the tank is less than a first pressure and
in an open position when the pressure in the tank is greater than the first
pressure, a cooling fluid conduit wrapped around a portion of the pressure
release valve to heat the same and prevent water from freezing and causing
the pressure release valve to stick and not open, the coolant fluid conduit
having a first end connected to a pressure release valve on a radiator to
deliver overflow liquid or gas to the coolant tank reservoir and a second
open end positioned to discharge cooling fluid into the tank reservoir.
In addition to background prior art that is applied as Applicants'
admitted prior art (AAP A), the Examiner relies on the following prior art
references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims:
Jansen
Bunta (as translated)
US 7 ,527 ,068 B2
JP 2006-200552 A
May 5, 2009
Aug.3,2006
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1 and 3-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Jansen (Final Office Act. 6-14). Claim
9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
AAP A in view of Jansen and Bunta (JP 2006-200552) (Final Office Act.
14).
We reverse the stated rejections.
2
Appeal2014-010000
Application 12/107,967
Concerning the Examiner's first stated obviousness rejection, the
Examiner appears to have correctly determined that the AAP A (background
disclosure) fails to include an admission that a fuel cell system cooling
system coolant tank reservoir pressure relief valve includes "a cooling fluid
conduit wrapped around a portion of the pressure release valve ... " as
required by claim 1 is known and/or an admission that a method comprising
providing a fuel cell system including a cooling system includes using "a
conduit wrapped around a pressure release valve of a coolant tank reservoir
... "as required by claim 8 as a known feature (Final Office Act. 8, 12;
Spec. ,-r 2).
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of Jansen to modify the applied AAP A
cooling water tank pressure relief valve with the water jacket sleeve of
Jansen in order "to provide a better performing valve having improved heat
transfer by providing a dedicated liquid cooling circuit" (Final Office Act. 9,
14; see Ans. 3; Jansen, abstract, col. 2, 11. 43---62, col. 3, 11. 7-15; col. 5, 1.
33---col. 7, 1. 63).
However and as basically argued by Appellants, Jansen is directed to
disparate applications of water cooled valves (i.e., a check valve), in
particular, water cooled valves used in the high pressure liquid fuel delivery
systems of gas turbine engine applications wherein a separate cooling circuit
furnishes cooling water for carrying heat away from (cooling) the valve in
order to reduce coking and provide more consistent operations and/ or a
better performing valves in the extreme environment of a combustion area of
a gas turbine engine (App. Br. 7, 10-15; Jansen, col. 2, 11. 43-53; col. 3, 11.
27-34; col. 5, 1. 34---col. 6, 1. 9).
3
Appeal2014-010000
Application 12/107,967
As stated in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),
"' [R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness'" (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's reason for combining the AAPA and Jansen is
premised on merely conclusory statements. The Examiner has not addressed
the significant differences between the AAPA and Jansen and explained
why, regardless of those differences, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to make the modification proposed by the Examiner by the
applied prior art.
The Examiner has not established how Bunta, as additionally applied
in the separate rejection of dependent claim 9, cures the aforementioned
deficiency in the Examiner's first stated rejection.
Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner used impermissible
hindsight in rejecting the Appellants' claims. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must
rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art").
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
REVERSED
4