Ex Parte O

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

14270416 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/270,416 05/06/2014
26096 7590 09/06/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan Daniel O'Neill
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.
76707US01;
67036-755US 1
CONFIRMATION NO.
6101
EXAMINER
DIGNAN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN DANIEL O'NEILL
Appeal 2017-011766
Application 14/270,416
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17.3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed May 6, 2014 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action dated March 14, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appellant's
Appeal Brief filed July 11, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer
dated August 23, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Appellant's Reply Brief filed
September 26, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2017-011766
Application 14/270,416
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to fuel cells and vehicles that
include a fuel cell for use in underwater applications (see, e.g., claims 1 and
9). According to the Inventor, gases, such as hydrogen and oxygen, may
become entrained in the cooling water used to cool a cathode. Spec. ,r 3. In
view of this, the Inventor discloses a fuel cell including, among other things,
a cooling water circuit associated with an accumulator and a system that
removes entrained gases from the water returned to the accumulator and
returns the removed gases to the cathode. Id. ,r 6.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A fuel cell comprising:
an anode and a cathode separated by a membrane;
a source of fuel for passing a fuel across said anode and a
source of oxygen containing gas for passing into a cathode inlet
and across a cathode;
a cooling water circuit, said cooling water circuit being
associated with an accumulator, and for supplying cooling
water to cool said cathode, and return the cooling water from
the cathode back to the accumulator; and
a system for removing entrained gases from the water
being returned to the accumulator and sending the removed
gases to said cathode inlet, and the oxygen containing gas
downstream of said cathode also being returned to said
accumulator in an oxygen containing gas return line.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grasso '505 4 in view of Grasso '259; 5
4 Grasso et al. US 6,979,505 B2, issued Dec. 27, 2005 ("Grasso '505").
5 Grasso et al., US 6,274,259 Bl, issued Aug. 14, 2001 ("Grasso '259").
2
Appeal 2017-011766
Application 14/270,416
and
II. Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Grasso '505 in view of Grasso
'259 and further in view ofKwon. 6
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grasso '505 in view of Grasso '259.
The Examiner finds Grasso '505 discloses a fuel cell including,
among other things, a cooling water circuit associated with an accumulator
142 for supplying cooling water to cool a cathode of the fuel cell and return
the cooling water from the cathode back to the accumulator, citing the
accumulators of Figures 1 and 2. Ans. 2, 4. The Examiner further finds the
fuel cell of Grasso '505 includes a system for removing entrained gases from
the cooling water being returned to the accumulator and sending the
removed gases to the cathode, citing line 138' of Figure 2. Id. at 2.
The Examiner finds Grasso '505 does not explicitly disclose an
oxygen return line from a cathode outlet to the accumulator in addition to a
line from the accumulator to the cathode inlet. Id. at 4. However, the
Examiner finds such configurations are known in the art and finds Grasso
'259 discloses redirecting oxidant from a cathode exhaust stream to a
cathode inlet to recycle leftover oxidant gas. Id. The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to modify either embodiment depicted in Figures 1
and 2 of Grasso '505 so there is both an oxidant stream from an accumulator
6 Kwon, US 8,216,736 B2, issued July 10, 2012 ("Kwon").
3
Appeal 2017-011766
Application 14/270,416
to a cathode inlet and a cathode exhaust stream feeding into an accumulator
because such modifications would recycle and conserve oxidant gas. Id. at
4--5.
Appellant contends Grasso '505 does not disclose the cooling water
circuit and system for removing entrained gas recited in claim 1. 7 Appeal
Br. 2. Specifically, Appellant asserts Figure 2 of Grasso '505 depicts
cooling water and an air line 13 8 being sent to an accumulator but the
oxygen-containing gas 144 exiting the cathode is not sent to an accumulator.
Id. Appellant argues Figure 1 of Grasso '505 shows an oxygen-containing
line being fed directly to a cathode without passing through an accumulator
42 while an oxygen-containing gas line 44 from the cathode passes through
the accumulator 42. Id. at 3.
In view of the above, Appellant contends that Figures 1 and 2 of
Grasso '505 depict either a main flow passing through a
degasifying/accumulator apparatus or a return flow passing through but there
is no reason to have both and the Examiner's rejection is based upon
impermissible hindsight. Id.; Rely Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that
Figures 1 and 2 of Grasso '505, when considered in combination, disclose
the cooling water circuit and system for removing entrained gases of claim 1
because Figure 1 depicts a recycle stream for recovering water from cathode
exhaust 44 via accumulator 42 and water transfer device while Figure 2
depicts a recycle stream for oxidant entrained in coolant exhaust and sending
7 Appellant further argues it is not desirable for underwater vehicles to have
gases escape. Appeal Br. 2; Reply Br. 1. As noted by the Examiner (Ans.
7), claim 1 does not recite an underwater vehicle.
4
Appeal 2017-011766
Application 14/270,416
it to the cathode input ( citing stream 13 8 '). Ans. 5. The Examiner states
that although the cathode exhaust 44 and stream 13 8' are not in the same
embodiment, it would have been obvious to combine these features, such as
to include stream 13 8' in Figure 1 or include an exhaust vapor stream from
the accumulator to the cathode inlet in Figure 2 so cathode exhaust is
recycled back to the cathode. Id. at 5---6. To support this rationale, the
Examiner cites Grasso '259 and Figure 1 of Appellant's disclosure, which
the Examiner finds to be admitted prior art, as demonstrating it was known
in the art to recycle cathode exhaust gas and return it to the inlet of a
cathode. Id. Appellant does not dispute these findings in the Examiner's
Answer. 8 Therefore, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the Examiner's legal conclusion of
obviousness for the rejection of claim 1. Appellant's arguments do not
identify a reversible error in the Examiner's rationale.
Appellant further asserts that mixing two flows of oxygen rich (the
main flow) and oxygen poor gas (the return flow) would have made a
negative impact upon the operation of the fuel cell of Grasso '505 and would
appear to eliminate the thermal transfer occurring in the water transfer
device of Grasso '505. Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1. Appellant, however, cites
no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to support this assertion. As a
result, these arguments also do not identify a reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
8 In response to the Appellant's arguments regarding the use of oxygen as an
oxygen containing gas for a fuel cell (Appeal Br. 3), the Examiner finds that
Grasso '505 and Grasso '259 would permit the use of oxygen and it is
known in the art to use oxygen or air. Ans. 7-8. Appellant does not respond
to these findings.
5
Appeal 2017-011766
Application 14/270,416
Appellant does not argue claims 3, 6, and 16 separately from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 2-3.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, and 16.
Rejection II
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Grasso '505 in view of Grasso '259 and
further in view of Kwon.
The Examiner finds Grasso '505 and Grasso '259 disclose the
limitations of claim 9 except for a vehicle that is used in underwater
applications. Final Act. 7-9. The Examiner finds Kwon teaches the
use of fuel cells with watercraft capable of underwater applications
and concludes it would have been obvious to modify the fuel cell of
Grasso '505 and Grasso '259 for use in an underwater vehicle in view
of Kwon's disclosure that such fuel cell can be used in that way. Id.
at 9.
In addition to the arguments discussed above with regard to the
rejection of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 2-3), Appellant argues the fuel cell of
Grasso '505 "would appear to be a very complex system including
specific systems for its applications" and "[ t ]here is no reason why
such a system is shown to have value in a vehicle for underwater
applications." Id. at 3.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. The arguments are
conclusory in nature and do not explain why the fuel cell of Grasso
'505 is complex and why such a complexity would have rendered the
6
Appeal 2017-011766
Application 14/270,416
proposed modification in view of Kwon non-obvious. The arguments
set forth for claim 1 are also unpersuasive with regard to the rejection
of claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, Appellant's
arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner's rejection.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer,
we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 9, 10, 13, 14, and
17.
DECISION
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).
AFFIRMED
7