Ex Parte Ji

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 23, 2012

10913860 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2012)

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.
10/913,860 08/06/2004 Chunxin Ji 8540G-000205 4347
27572 7590 04/23/2012
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
BEST, ZACHARY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2012 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 CHUNXIN JI
____________________

Appeal 2010-005978
Application 10/913,860
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-8, and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Isono1 in view of Wilson2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Isono et al., US 6,365,293 B1, patented Apr. 2, 2002.
2 Wilson, US 5,641,586, patented Jun. 24, 1997.
Appeal 2010-005978
Application 10/913,860

2
The invention relates to fuel cells and, particularly, to diffusion media
used in fuel cells (Spec. ¶ [0001]). The diffusion media includes
hydrophobic and hydrophilic areas for improved water management (Spec. ¶
[0007]). The diffusion medium may be a carbon fiber paper sheet (id.). To
define the hydrophobic areas, a hydrophobic polymer is deposited onto the
paper (id.). To define the hydrophilic areas, a hydrophilic electroconductive
polymer is deposited onto the paper (id.).
All of the claims require a diffusion medium comprising a hydro-
phobic polymer and a hydrophilic polymer deposited on a conductive porous
material or substrate to respectively form hydrophobic areas and hydrophilic
areas on the material or substrate (Claims 1 and 26).
There is little dispute on this record about the teachings of the
references. In fact, the Examiner’s findings with regard to the teachings of
the references are well supported by the prior art. The question is whether
the prior art as whole provides enough evidence to support the Examiner’s
determination that the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the fuel cell art depositing Wilson’s hydrophilic polyaniline polymer onto
the gas diffusion layer of Isono. We agree with Appellant that the evidence
falls short.
As well explained by Appellant, Isono applies a hydrophobic polymer
onto the gas diffusion layer to define hydrophobic areas (Br. 7-8). There is
no question that Isono does not deposit hydrophilic polymer onto the gas
diffusion layer (id.; Ans. 4).
Wilson incorporates a hydrophilic macroporous flow field 24, 44
along with a reduced thickness gas diffusion backing 26, 46 into a fuel cell
Appeal 2010-005978
Application 10/913,860

3
(Figs. 1B, 1C; col. 3, ll. 26-41). But, as pointed out by Appellant, the
macroporous flow field of Wilson is a separate structure from the gas
diffusion backing (Br. 8-10). Wilson’s gas diffusion backing is of the
known hydrophobic variety (col. 1, ll. 34-37; col. 3, ll. 36-40; col. 4, ll. 16-
21). Both Isono and Wilson suggest using hydrophobic materials on gas
diffusion media.
As pointed out by Appellant, at best, the prior art suggests
incorporating a hydrophilic macroporous flow field in combination with a
reduced thickness gas diffusion layer as taught by Wilson into a fuel cell,
and depositing a hydrophobic polymer on that reduced thickness gas
diffusion layer in the pattern disclosed by Isono (Br. 10-12). In other words,
the combination of references only suggests depositing hydrophobic
polymer to define hydrophobic areas, it does not suggest further applying a
hydrophilic polymer “deposited on the porous material defining hydrophilic
areas” as required by claim 1 or “deposited on the substrate defining the
hydrophilic areas” as required by claim 26.
While the Examiner has advanced a well-reasoned analysis and
effectively supported the fact findings with regard to the teachings of the
references, the evidence falls short of supporting the Examiner’s finding of a
suggestion to modify Isono’s gas diffusion layer with a deposit of
hydrophilic polymer to define hydrophilic areas.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2010-005978
Application 10/913,860

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

cam