Ex Parte Kolodziej

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 10, 2009

10948402 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 10, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JASON R. KOLODZIEJ
____________

Appeal 2009-006771
Application 10/948,402
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: December 10, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 14-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 14 is illustrative:

Appeal 2009-006771
Application 10/948,402

14. A fuel cell system comprising:

a fuel cell stack;

a radiator;

a coolant loop directing a cooling fluid through the fuel cell
stack and the radiator and receiving the cooling fluid from the fuel cell stack
and the radiator, said coolant loop including a bypass portion;

a pump for pumping the cooling fluid through the coolant loop,
the fuel cell stack and the radiator;

a bypass valve for selectively directing the cooling fluid
through the radiator and the bypass portion around the radiator;

an input temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of
the cooling fluid entering the fuel cell stack;

an output temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of
the cooling fluid exiting the fuel cell stack; and

a controller for controlling the bypass valve and the pump
based on the temperature of the cooling fluid, said controller controlling the
bypass valve and the pump in combination.

The Examiner relies upon the Admitted Prior Art (APA) in the
rejection of the appealed claims.
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a fuel cell system
comprising a fuel cell stack, a radiator, a coolant loop, a pump for pumping
cooling fluid through the loop, a bypass valve, input and output temperature
sensors for the fuel cell stack, and a controller for controlling the bypass
valve and the pump based on the temperature of the cooling fluid. The
appealed claims recite that “said controller controlling the bypass valve and
the pump in combination” (claim 14, last para).
2
Appeal 2009-006771
Application 10/948,402

Appealed claims 14-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the APA.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is described by the APA within the meaning
of § 102. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
The dispositive issue on appeal focuses upon the meaning attributed to
the claim 14 recitation “said controller controlling the bypass valve and the
pump in combination”. Appellant acknowledges that Figure 1 of the present
Specification represents a system of the APA. The system of the APA is a
fuel cell system comprising all the claimed components, namely, a fuel cell
stack, a radiator, a coolant loop, a pump for pumping cooling fluid through
the coolant loop, a bypass valve for selectively directing the cooling fluid
through the radiator, input and output temperature sensors for the fuel cell
stack, and a controller for controlling the bypass valve and the pump based
on the temperature of the cooling fluid.
It is Appellant’s contention, however, that “the known temperature
control schemes for controlling the temperature of fuel cell systems
independently control the speed of the pump 20 and the position of the by-
pass valve 26” (App. Br. 5, second para.). Appellant urges that such
independent control does not meet the claim requirement for controlling the
bypass valve and pump in combination. Appellant submits that the pump
and bypass valve of the claimed invention “are not controlled independently
of each other, but rather when the speed of the pump changes, the position of
the by-pass valve changes and when the position of the by-pass valve
3
Appeal 2009-006771
Application 10/948,402

changes, the speed of the pump changes” (App. Br. 6, first full para.).
Appellant maintains that “[i]t is clear that what Appellant means by being
controlled in combination is that the pump and the position of the by-pass
valve are not independently controlled” (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We are in full
agreement with the Examiner that, when the claim language is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation, as it must be, it encompasses a controller
that controls a combination of a bypass valve and a pump that work
independently of each other. The claim language on appeal does not require
that the bypass valve and the pump are so related in function that when the
speed of the pump changes, the position of the valve changes, and when the
position of the valve changes, the speed of the pump changes. Appellant has
chosen to not include such a recitation in the claims on appeal, but defines
the invention with broader language that embraces the APA.
As for the requirement of dependent claims 24 and 25 that the pump
and bypass valve are positioned downstream from the output of the radiator,
and that the bypass valve is positioned further downstream than the pump,
we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s Figure 1 depicts
bypass valve 26 downstream from radiator 22 and farther downstream than
pump 20 as the flow of coolant proceeds counter-clockwise in the direction
of the arrows.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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) (2008).
4
Appeal 2009-006771
Application 10/948,402

AFFIRMED

ssl

MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
5