Ex Parte Ouwerkerk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201512251822 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation