Ex Parte Parchamazad

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 5, 2010

09973287 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 5, 2010)

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.
09/973,287 10/05/2001 Iraj Parchamazad 121397-173246 6007
25943 7590 10/05/2010
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte IRAJ PARCHAMAZAD
____________________

Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fischer (US

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287

2
3,718,506; issued Feb. 27, 1973). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention relates to a reformer, an apparatus that converts
a mixture of low-pressure hydrocarbon gas and steam into hydrogen (Spec.
1:2-5; Br. 2). The reformer includes a fuel/steam delivery system
comprising coaxial tubes, i.e., an outer tube for delivery of steam, and an
inner tube for delivery of the hydrocarbon gas (Spec. 3:12-15). The steam
tube has a tip at its end that is gradually reduced in diameter to form a
truncated conical tip (id.). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A reformer for a mixture of low-pressure hydrocarbon
gas and steam for fueling a proton-exchange fuel cell with
hydrogen from said mixture, comprising:
(a) a cylinder loosely packed with a palletized catalyst with a
cap at each end,
(b) a fuel tube having an outflow end coupled to said
cylinder for introducing said hydrocarbon gas into one end of
said cylinder at low pressure,
(c) a steam tube coaxial with and surrounding said fuel tube
for concurrently introducing said hydrocarbon gas and steam at
a pressure higher than the pressure of said hydrocarbon gas at
said one end of said cylinder, said steam tube having a tip at its
outflow end that is gradually reduced in diameter over its length
to form a truncated conical tip, said fuel tube having a
substantially open end coincident with, and of smaller diameter
than said steam tube diameter, and,
(d) an outflow tube protruding outwardly from said cylinder
at an end of said cylinder opposite said one end,
Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287

3
(e) said steam tube being formed and [sic]2 to draw said
hydrocarbon gas with said steam, and to direct said steam in a
path that is at an acute angle with the path of said fuel outflow,
said fuel flow path lying substantially along the axis of said
coaxial fuel and steam tubes, and that crosses said fuel path at
an acute angle from all radial directions.
(Claim 1 (clause labels (a) – (e) added for ease of reference in the
discussion below).)

Appellant presents arguments for claims 1 and 2, but does not argue
claims 3 or 4 separately. Therefore, we confine our review to the issues
arising from Appellant’s arguments against claims 1 and 2. Claims 3 and 4
stand or fall with claim 1.
II. DISPOSITIVE ISSUES
The issues arising are as follows:
1) Does the evidence support the Examiner’s finding that Fischer
describes either expressly or inherently a reformer structure including the
tube structure required by claim 1?
2) Does the evidence support the Examiner’s finding that Fischer
describes a reformer structure including an inner tube (claimed fuel tube)
having the structure further required by claim 2?
III. DISCUSSION
A. CLAIM 1
With regard to claim 1, Appellant first reproduces clause (c) of claim
1 and contends that Fischer “does not disclose, or refer to, a fuel tube or

2 The Examiner objected to the last clause of claim 1, stating that it should
be amended (Final Office Action 3). In response, Appellant states that the
word “and” is unnecessary and should be deleted (Br. 5). Therefore, the
word “and” at this location in the claim appears to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287

4
steam tube that have these claimed structures though the PTO apparently
infers, using impermissible hindsight and appellant’s disclosure, the
presence of such structures from the depiction of tubes 3a’ and 3’ in Fig. 2
of [Fischer].” (Br. 5; Reply Br. 1-2).
The Examiner responds that Figure 2 shows the required coaxial tube
and tip structure at 3’ and 3a’ (Ans. 5).
Turning to Fischer, we note that the central portion of Figure 2 shows
3’ and 3a’ as reproduced below:

Central Portion of Fig. 2
In reference to Figure 1, which depicts a slightly different fuel cell
battery (Fischer, col. 3, ll. 38-47), Fischer describes 3a as an annular duct
arrangement surrounding nozzle 3 (Fischer, col. 3, ll. 65-68). The structure
is depicted in the same way in Figure 2 and the duct 3a’ is said to surround
nozzle 3’ (Fischer, col. 5, ll. 29-31).
We note that, other than to say the Examiner is using impermissible
hindsight and Appellant’s own disclosure to infer that Figure 2 shows the
structure of clause (c), Appellant does not further explain how the structure
depicted in Fischer’s Figure 2 is different from the structure required by
Appellant’s clause (c).
Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287

5
We determine that in view of the description of the apparatus in
columns 3 and 5 in conjunction with the illustration in Figure 2 of Fischer, it
was reasonable for the Examiner to find that Fischer describes a coaxial tube
and tip structure meeting the requirements of clause (c) of claim 1. The
outer tube (tube surrounding duct 3a’) has an outflow end that is of a
gradually reduced diameter and can be fairly interpreted as having a
truncated conical tip as required by clause (c) of claim 1. Figure 2 depicts
such a structure in cross section just above the cylindrical entry pipe leading
to reformer 13.
Under the circumstances, we cannot say that Appellant has persuaded
us of error on the part of the Examiner with regard to the finding that Fischer
describes the structure required by clause (c) of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that Fischer does not disclose that “steam in
tube 3a’ is drawn into the path of the hydrocarbon fuel flow from tube 3’ at
an acute angle from all radial directions,” as required by clause (e) of
claim 1 (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2). According to Appellant, there is no
disclosure of such a structure, the Examiner has not pinpointed such a
disclosure, and there is no basis for asserting that the structure is inherently
present because the structure and its effects on steam flow arise in part from
the pressure differential between the fuel flow and the steam flow (Br. 5-6;
Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner responds that Figure 2 shows the required acute angle
and the angle would be acute from any radial direction as claimed (Ans. 5).
The Examiner further responds that Fischer explicitly states the feature of
drawing the hydrocarbon gas as claimed (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287

6
The evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the angle at which
the gas in the duct impinges the hydrocarbon gas would be acute from all
radial directions as claimed. The angle is acute due to the gradually
reducing diameters of the tubes. Moreover, the tubes are coaxial and the gas
is expelled in an annular duct around the nozzle. Therefore, the acute angle
would occur at every point around the nozzle.
With regard to the claimed drawing effect on the hydrocarbon gas
mentioned in Appellant’s argument, Fischer’s duct and nozzle are designed
to use the jet pump principle, an effect that the Examiner finds is the same as
the fluid drawing feature that Appellant refers to in the claim (Fischer, col.
3, l. 66 to col. 4, l. 3; col. 5, ll. 29-33; Ans. 6). Appellant does not dispute
this fact (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2). The undisputed evidence supports the
finding of the Examiner.
In so far as Appellant is relying upon functional differences between
what is claimed and what is taught by Fischer, we further note that the
claims are directed to an apparatus and must be distinguished from the prior
art in terms of structure, rather than function. See In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,
848 (CCPA 1959). We have considered the effects of the claimed functions
only in so far as they serve to differentiate the claimed structure from the
structure of Fischer.
The evidence as a whole supports the Examiner’s finding that Fischer
describes either expressly or inherently a reformer structure including a
coaxial tube and tip structure as required by claim 1.

Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287

7
B. CLAIM 2
Claim 2 further requires the fuel tube have “a tip of given length at its
outflow end that is reduced in diameter gradually along said given length.”
Appellant’s entire argument is as follows:
The '506 patent [Fischer] states nothing about the
structure of fuel nozzle 3' in Figure 2, not even that it is the
same as nozzle 3 in Figure 1 of the '506 patent. Regarding
nozzle 3 in Fig. 1 of the '506 patent, the '506 patent states only
that it is "so dimensioned" to introduce more recycled
combustion gas than fresh propane into the mixture delivered to
the fuel cell in Fig. 1 of the '506 patent. Appellant's claims do
not refer to, or call for delivering recycled combustion gas to
either the stem [sic, steam] tube or the hydrocarbon tube.
(Br. 6; Reply Br. 3.)
The Examiner responds that Fischer illustrates the nozzle in Figure 2,
which shows the required tip of given length at its outflow end having
gradually reducing diameter along that given length (Ans. 6).
We cannot say that Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s finding. Fischer describes 3’ as a “nozzle” and Figure 2 depicts
a nozzle with a gradually reducing diameter along a given length. This is
enough of a description to support the finding of the Examiner.
With respect to the identity of the gas within the duct of Fischer,
Appellant has not explained how the difference in chemical composition of
the gas in the duct surrounding the fuel tube results in a structural difference
in the fuel tube. Moreover, the recitation of a material intended to be
worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not differentiate the claimed
apparatus structure from the structure of a prior art apparatus. In re Rishoi,
197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952).
Appeal 2009-012150
Application 09/973,287

8
The evidence as a whole supports the Examiner’s finding that Fischer
describes a reformer structure including an inner tube (claimed fuel tube)
having the structure further required by claim 2.
IV. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, obvious over
Fischer.
V. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
VI. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

cam

SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND OR 97204