Ex Parte Milacic et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201412498461 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/498,461 07/07/2009 Milos Milacic 81161881 8443 28395 7590 10/30/2014 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER LEONG, JONATHAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1725 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2014 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 MILOS MILACIC, SCOTT M. STALEY, and WILLIAM F. SANDERSON ____________ Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1–6 and 19–32. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 2 We AFFIRM and denominate a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) with regard to the rejection of claims 20, 25, 26, 31, and 32. Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for humidifying a master fuel cell stack with a slave fuel cell stack (Spec. 1:8– 10). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A system for humidifying a fuel cell stack system comprising: a slave stack including a first outlet and a second outlet for generating power to drive a load in response to an anode fluid stream, the first outlet being arranged to discharge an anode recirculated fluid stream having water content therein and the second outlet being arranged to discharge an unused cathode fluid stream; a master stack including an anode inlet for receiving the anode recirculated fluid stream to humidify the master stack with the water content and a cathode inlet for receiving the unused cathode fluid stream; a first valve for delivering the anode recirculated fluid stream from the first outlet of the slave stack to the anode inlet of the master stack based on a power request amount by the load. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1–6 and 19–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Gallagher (US 2008/0107933 A1, pub. May 8, 2008) in view of Katz (EPA 0 263 052 B1, issued Feb. 27, 1991) and Senner (US 2007/0099037 A1, pub. May 3, 2007). We find that Appellants’ arguments fall into three groupings of claims: (1) claims 1, 21, and 27, of which claim 1 is representative; (2) claims 19, 22 and 28, of which claim 19 is representative; and (3) claims 20, 25, 26, 31, and 32, of which claims 20, 25, and 26 are representative. Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 3 Group (1): Claim 1 ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err finding that the combined teachings of Gallagher, Katz and Senner would have suggested “a master stack including an anode inlet for receiving the anode recirculated fluid stream to humidify the master stack with the water content and a cathode inlet for receiving the unused cathode fluid stream” as recited in claim 1? We decide this issue in the negative. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Gallagher teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for a cathode inlet of the master stack receiving the unused cathode fluid stream and recirculating the fluid stream to humidify the master stack (Ans. 2–3). The Examiner finds that Katz teaches connecting fuel cell stacks serially instead of in parallel in order to allow fabrication of stack components with more relaxed dimensional tolerance due to an increased fuel cushion (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that Senner teaches that it was known that recirculating streams are useful in humidifying the inlet of the receiving stack which increases performance and durability (Ans. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Gallagher so that the fuel cells stacks are connected serially to permit humidification of a master stack for the reasons taught by Katz and Senner (Ans. 3). Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Gallagher, Katz, and Senner fail to teach or suggest “a slave stack including a first outlet and a second outlet for generating power to drive a load in response to an anode fluid stream, the first outlet being arranged to discharge an anode Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 4 recirculated fluid stream having water content therein and the second outlet being arranged to discharge an unused cathode fluid stream” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 3). Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to take account of the above-recited limitations in the proposed combination of Gallagher, Katz, and Senner (App. Br. 4). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that Katz teaches feeding the hydrogen fuel and air in a serial fashion from one cell stack to another cell stack (Ans. 3, 9). To accomplish Katz’s teaching, each fuel cell must have a fuel inlet and outlet and an air inlet and outlet. We find that the Examiner has addressed the disputed limitation in applying the cited prior art to the claimed subject matter. Appellants contend that the combined teachings of Gallagher, Katz, and Senner fail to teach or suggest a “master stack including an anode inlet for receiving the anode recirculated fluid stream to humidify the master stack with the water content and a cathode inlet for receiving the unused cathode fluid stream” (App. Br. 4). Appellants contend that Gallagher and Katz only teach that fuel (i.e., H2) is recycled on another fuel cell stack, not a cathode fluid stream recycled to another fuel cell stack (App. Br. 4–7). Appellants’ arguments fail to address specifically or show error with the Examiner’s rejection which is based upon modifying Gallagher to have the serially connected fuel cell arrangement taught by Katz. Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner’s finding that Katz discloses that the cathode oxygen, in addition to the fuel H2, may be fed to the fuel cells serially (Ans. 9; Reply Br. 1–2). The Examiner proposes modifying Gallagher so that the fuel cells are connected serially for the benefits disclosed by Katz for such a fuel cell arrangement (Ans. 3, 9). Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 5 Appellants have not shown error with the Examiner’s rejection and thus we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection claims 1, 21, and 27. Group (2): Claim 19 Appellants argue that Gallagher, Katz, and Senner fail to teach or suggest a second valve for delivering the unused cathode fluid stream to the cathode inlet of the master stack based on the power request amount by the load (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that Gallagher’s supply valve 56 does not deliver unused cathode air from the second outlet of the slave stack to the cathode inlet of the master stack based upon the power request amount by the load (App. Br. 9). The Examiner finds that Gallagher as modified by Katz includes the serially connected fuel cell stacks, which would have included a valve, such as valve 56 in Gallagher, for controlling airflow to the fuel cell stacks (Ans. 4–5). The Examiner finds that Gallagher teaches controlling the airflow via valve 56 in response to power demands on the fuel cells (Ans. 10). Appellants’ arguments do not specifically address the Examiner’s stated rejection and what the combined teachings of the art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 19, 22 and 28. Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 6 Group (3): Claims 20, 25, and 26 Claim 20 recites: “[t]he system of claim 1 wherein the first valve is configured to close to prevent the anode recirculated fluid stream from being delivered to the anode inlet of the master stack in response to the power request amount being less than a predetermined power threshold.” Claim 25 recites: “[t]he fuel system of claim 24 further including a second valve for delivering the anode recirculated fluid stream from the second outlet of the slave stack to the anode inlet of the master stack based on the power request amount by the load.” Claim 26 recites: “[t]he fuel system of claim 25 wherein the second valve is configured to close to prevent the anode recirculated fluid stream from being delivered to the anode inlet of the master stack in the event the power request amount by the load is less than a predetermined power threshold.” Appellants argue that Gallagher fails to teach any type of valve, let alone the presently claimed first valve being configured to close to prevent the anode recirculated fluid stream from being delivered to the anode inlet of the master stack in response to the power request amount being less than a predetermined power threshold (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that Gallagher only teaches an air supply control valve 56, and not a valve for controlling the flow of an anode-recirculated stream (App. Br. 18, 19). The Examiner finds that Gallagher teaches stopping the anode fluid stream when the power drops below a crossover threshold (Ans. 5, 10–14). Gallagher teaches that when the power demand falls below a crossover threshold, the fuel cells stack may enter a “hibernation” mode in which the Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 7 anode fuel and oxidant may be halted (Gallagher paras. [0041]–[0042], [0047]–[0051]). The Examiner finds that Appellants do not define what constitutes a “valve” and the Examiner construes “valve” as “any device for halting or controlling the flow of a liquid, gas, or other material through a passage, pipe, inlet, outlet, etc.” (Ans. 11). With this definition, the Examiner finds that Gallagher’s disclosure that the anode flow is halted if the power demand falls below a crossover threshold meets the claim limitation as the structure which functions to halt the fuel recirculation process in Gallagher is by definition a valve that is configured to close to prevent the anode recirculated fluid stream of modified Gallagher from being delivered to the anode inlet of the master stack in response to power request and thus the subject matter of claims 25 and 26 (Ans. 11, 13–14). In response to the Examiner’s findings, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of valve is not reasonable, as it is not clear what structure in Gallagher the Examiner is relying upon to be the presently claimed valve (Reply Br. 3, 5). We agree with the Examiner that combined teachings of Gallagher, Katz, and Senner would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 20, 25, and 26. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Gallagher teaches halting the flow of fuel to the fuel cell if the power demand drops and cutting off the supply of air using valve 56 if the power supply drops. Gallagher teaches that the anode fuel lines may include a recirculation line for mixing a providing fuel to the fuel cell stack 12 (para. [0034]). In our view, Gallagher would have suggested using a valve to halt the flow of fuel including recirculated fuel from one fuel cell to another fuel cell if the power Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 8 demand falls below a threshold level. Indeed, Gallagher teaches using a valve 56 to control the flow of oxidant gas to the fuel cells, which would have suggested using a valve to halt the flow of fuel in the anode. Since our reasoning differs from the Examiner with regard to claims 20, 25, 26, 31 and 32 we denominate our affirmance a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed and we denominate our affirmance of claims 20, 25, 26, 31 and 32 a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . Appeal 2013-000664 Application 12/498,461 9 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . ORDER AFFIRMED & NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B) cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation