Ex Parte Ouwerkerk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2015

12251822 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
12/251,822 10/15/2008 David B. Ouwerkerk P001854-R&D-MJL 6277
104102 7590 09/22/2015
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
EXAMINER
COHEN, BRIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2015 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 DAVID B. OUWERKERK, NELSON A. KELLY
and THOMAS L. GIBSON
____________

Appeal 2014-001284
Application 12/251,822
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–11 and 20–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is best illustrated by independent claim 1,
reproduced below:

Appeal 2014-001284
Application 12/251,822

2
1. A product comprising a high pressure proton
exchange membrane based water electrolyzer system
comprising:

an outer electrode having an interior region and a water
inlet;

a gas outlet coupled within another portion of said outer
electrode;

a center electrode coupled within said interior region,
said center electrode electrically coupled to said outer electrode
through a direct current power source;

a membrane electrode assembly spiral wound around said
center electrode within said interior region, said membrane
electrode assembly including a plurality of proton exchange
membrane cells electrically coupled in series, each of said
plurality of proton exchange membrane cells coupled to a
proton exchange membrane, wherein an innermost one of said
plurality of proton exchange membrane cells may be
electrically coupled to said center electrode and wherein an
outermost one of said plurality of proton exchange membrane
cells may be electrically coupled to said outer electrode: and

a non-conductor separator member wound around said
center electrode and coupled to said center electrode and said
outer electrode, said non-conductor separator membrane
preventing electrical contact between said plurality of proton
exchange membrane cells.

The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
(a) claims 1–3 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ghosh (US 2006/0249393 A1, published November 9,
2006), Robertson (US 4,040,938, issued August 9, 1977) and Henry (US
2009/0090313 A1, published April 9, 2009);

Appeal 2014-001284
Application 12/251,822

3
(b) claims 20–23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ghosh, Robertson, Wilkinson (US 2008/0202942 A1, published August
28, 2008) and Henry;

(c) claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Henry and Srinivasan (Recent Advances In Solid Polymer
Electrolyte Fuel Cell Technology With Low Platinum Loading Electrodes, J.
Power Sources 29, 367–387 (1990));

(d) claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Henry, Nakazawa (US 2004/0084302 Al, published May
6, 2004) and Pientka (US 2010/0192771 Al, published August 5, 2010);

(e) claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Henry, Nakazawa, Pientka, Shimko (US 2007/0151865
Al, published July 5, 2007) and McClaine (US 2007/0227899 A1, published
October 4, 2007);

(f) claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Henry and Shimko;

(g) claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Henry and Sullivan (US 6,890,410 B2, issued May 10,
2005);

(h) claims 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ghosh, Robertson, Henry and Wilkinson;

(i) claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Wilkinson, Henry, Nakazawa and Pientka;

(j) claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Wilkinson, Henry, Nakazawa, Pientka and Shimko;

(k) claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Wilkinson, Henry and Shimko; and

(l) claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghosh, Robertson, Wilkinson, Henry and Sullivan.
Appeal 2014-001284
Application 12/251,822

4

OPINION

Prior Art Rejections
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1–11 and 20–27 (Rejections (a)–(l)) for the reasons presented by Appellants.
We add the following.
Rejection (a)
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a complete statement of
Rejection (a). Final Act. 2–7.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a high pressure proton exchange
membrane based water electrolyzer system that requires a membrane
electrode assembly (MEA) including a plurality of proton exchange
membrane cells (PEM cells) electrically coupled in series, each of said
plurality of proton exchange membrane cells coupled to a proton exchange
membrane (PEM).1
The Examiner relies on the structure of Robertson’s Figure 7 as
teaching this feature of the subject matter of independent claim 1. Final Act.
5; Robertson Figure 7, col. 3 ll. 50–56, col. 5, ll. 1–31.
We agree with Appellants that the disclosure of Robertson does not
teach a membrane electrode assembly including a plurality of proton
exchange membrane cells as claimed by Appellants. App. Br. 14.
Robertson’s Figure 7 shows an electrode arrangement of two sets of

1 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2014-001284
Application 12/251,822

5
electrodes 20, 21 spaced apart by insulating separator 23, 24 for feeding
electrical power for bipolar operation of the electrodes. Robertson col. 5, ll.
1–31. The Examiner has not adequately explained how the structure of
Figure 7 is relevant to the claimed invention. The Examiner directs us to no
portion of Robertson that supports the Examiner’s assertion that the structure
of Figure 7 teaches the claimed MEA/PEM cell arrangement. Thus, the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the structure illustrated in
Robertson’s Figure 7 would have led one skilled in the art to a MEA having
PEM cells electrically coupled in series, each of said plurality of PEM cells
coupled to a proton exchange membrane as claimed.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejection (a)).
Rejections (b)–(l)
The Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(Rejections (b)–(l)) are premised on the combined teachings of Ghosh,
Robertson and Henry teaching a high pressure proton exchange membrane
based water electrolyzer system having the claimed MEA/PEM cell
arrangement. See Final Action, generally. As discussed above, such is not
the case. The Examiner did not cite the additional secondary references to
overcome the previously noted deficiency of the combined teachings of
Ghosh, Robertson and Henry.
Therefore, the Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (Rejections (b)–(l)) are also reversed for the reasons presented by
Appellants and given above.

Appeal 2014-001284
Application 12/251,822

6
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–11 and 20–27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections (a)–(l)) are reversed.

REVERSED

kmm