12715592 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

Ex Parte Karulkar

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 2014

12715592 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

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. 12/715,592 03/02/2010 Mohan Karulkar 81204827 9084 28395 7590 12/17/2014 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER DOMONE, CHRISTOPHER P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2014 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 MOHAN KARULKAR ____________ Appeal 2013-003469 Application 12/715,5921 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7 and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appellant claims a catalyst assembly comprising first and second layers containing first and second noble metal catalysts wherein one of these catalysts includes a metallic alloy of platinum, nickel, and cobalt (claim 7). Appellant also claims a fuel cell comprising an ionic exchange membrane 104 and a layered catalyst assembly including a first layer 102 containing a 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Br. 1. Appeal 2013-003469 Application 12/715,592 2 first catalyst on a first support material having a first average surface area per weight and a second layer 106 having a second catalyst on a second support material having a second average surface area per weight less than the first average surface area, wherein the first layer is disposed between the ionic exchange membrane and the second layer (claim 18, Fig 1). A copy of claims 7 and 18, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 7. A catalyst assembly comprising: a first layer containing a first noble metal catalyst supported on a first support material having a first average surface area per weight; and a second layer separate from and positioned next to the first layer, the second layer containing a second noble metal catalyst supported on a second support material having a second average surface area per weight less than the first average surface area per weight wherein the first and the second noble metal catalysts each independently include a noble metal, a metallic alloy having at least one noble metal, or combinations thereof wherein one of the first and second noble metal catalysts includes platinum and the other includes a metallic alloy of platinum, nickel, and cobalt. 18. A fuel cell comprising: an ionic exchange membrane; and a layered catalyst assembly disposed next to the ionic exchange membrane, the layered catalyst assembly including a first layer containing a first noble metal catalyst supported on a first support material having a first average surface area per weight; and a second layer separate from and disposed next to the first layer, the second layer containing a second noble metal catalyst supported on a second support material having a second average surface area per weight less than the first average Appeal 2013-003469 Application 12/715,592 3 surface area per weight, wherein the first layer is disposed between the ionic exchange membrane and the second layer, and wherein the first and second support materials collectively defining channels of differential hydrophobicity, and wherein the channels of differential hydrophobicity including a relatively hydrophilic channel for passing water molecules and a relatively hydrophobic channel for passing oxygen molecules. The § 102 Rejection The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shibutani (US 2006/0141337 A1 published June 29, 2006) (see, e.g., Ans. 3–4 citing, inter alia, Figs. 4A and 4B). Appellant concedes that Figure 4B of Shibutani discloses large- diameter carbons 36 (i.e., a second support material having relatively less average surface area per weight) and small-diameter carbons 37 (i.e., a first support material having relatively more average surface area per weight) (Br. 7). However, Appellant argues “Figure 4B appears to show that large- diameter carbons 36 [i.e., a second support material] in general are closer and next to the membrane 12 [i.e., the ionic exchange membrane] than the small-diameter carbons 37 [i.e., a first support material]” (id. at 8). It is Appellant’s implicit position that the Figure 4B arrangement of Shibutani fails to satisfy the claim 18 requirement “wherein the first layer is disposed between the ionic exchange membrane and the second layer.” Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner, claim 18 encompasses an embodiment wherein the first layer includes not only first but also second catalysts and support materials and wherein the second layer includes not only second but also first catalysts and support materials (Ans. 6). The Examiner further explains that, “even if the [first and second] layers [of Figure 4B] comprise equal amounts of the two Appeal 2013-003469 Application 12/715,592 4 particles [i.e., large-diameter carbons 36 and small-diameter carbons 37], the claimed invention is met since a first layer that contains particles with a first average surface area per weight (small particles) is located between the ion exchange membrane and a second layer that contains a second average surface area per weight less than the first (larger particles)” (id. at 7). The Examiner’s explanation is well supported by the record and not disputed by Appellant (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). We sustain, therefore, the § 102 rejection of claim 18 as anticipated by Shibutani. The § 103 Rejection The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shibutani in view of Uchida (US 7,201,993 B2 issued Apr. 10, 2007).2 The Examiner finds: that Shibutani is silent regarding use of an alloyed platinum material for the catalyst (see, e.g., Ans. 4); that Uchida teaches a fuel cell containing catalytic material which “can be platinum or an alloy of platinum (Pt) with Ni, Ru, Fe, Mo or the like” (id.); that “[w]hile Uchida does not explicitly teach cobalt as a choice for the alloy material, it is a well-known alloy material for catalysts and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (id. at 4–5); and that 2 The Response to Argument section of the Answer represents that additional references to Ito and Wang support the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion regarding claim 7 (Ans. 8–9). We will not consider these additional references because they are not included in the statement of rejection for this claim. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341 (CCPA 1970). Appeal 2013-003469 Application 12/715,592 5 “[u]se of the alloyed catalytic material would have predictable results” (id. at 5). In light of these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Shibutani with catalytic material in the form of a metallic alloy of platinum, nickel, and cobalt as required by claim 7 (id.). Appellant acknowledges the Examiner’s above findings that cobalt is a well-known alloy material for catalysts and that use of the alloyed catalytic material would have predictable results (Br. 11). Furthermore, Appellant does not contest these findings. Instead, Appellant argues without embellishment “[t]he mere fact that Co may be a well known alloy material does not make it obvious to alloy Co particularly with Pt and Ni” (id.). In the absence of any explanatory reasoning, this argument lacks convincing merit. Appellant concedes that Uchida “discloses a Pt alloy with Ru, Mo, Ni, Fe or the like” (id. citing col. 10, l. 67). The phrase “or the like” in this disclosure would have suggested elements in addition to those explicitly listed. Based on the record before us, we have no reason to doubt the Examiner’s determination that one having ordinary skill in this art would have considered cobalt to be a suitable element for alloying with the platinum and nickel elements expressly taught by Uchida. Because Appellant fails to identify with any reasonable specificity an error on the Examiner’s part, we also sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Shibutani and Uchida. 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). Appeal 2013-003469 Application 12/715,592 6 AFFIRMED bar