Ex Parte Perry

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2008

10981183 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL L. PERRY
____________

Appeal 2007-3963
Application 10/981,183
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 4, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2007-3963
Application 10/981,183

I. BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a fuel cell power plant including multiple
stages of fuel cell stacks. The stages are connected in tandem by a unitary
manifold assembly. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A fuel cell power plant power section assembly comprising:

a) a plurality of fuel cell stacks, said fuel cell stacks being being [sic]
divided into at least two stages which are provided by a fuel gas stream in
tandem with partially spent fuel from one stage being fed into a subsequent
stage, said one stage including a plurality of fuel cell stacks, and said
subsequent stage including at least one fuel cell stack;

b) a unitary manifold assembly for use in controlling the flow of
reactant gas streams between said plurality of fuel cell stacks in said one
stage and said subsequent stage, said manifold assembly comprising a single
fuel gas passage operatively connected to said plurality of fuel cell stacks in
said one stage, said fuel gas passage being operative to receive partially
expended fuel gas streams exhausted from said plurality of fuel cell stacks
and to combine said partially expended fuel gas streams into a combined
fuel gas stream, and said fuel gas passage also being operatively connected
to said at least one fuel cell stack in said subsequent stage for directing the
combined fuel gas stream to said at least one fuel cell stack in said
subsequent stage, whereby the combined fuel gas stream is used to provide
fuel for the subsequent stage fuel cell stack; and

c) thermal insulation which thermally insulates said manifold
assembly from ambient temperatures so as to limit moisture condensation in
said fuel gas passage.

Appellant requests review of the following rejections made under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. The rejection of claim 1 over Katz (EP 0 263 052 A1 published
Apr. 6, 1988) in view of Brambilla et al. (US 2003/0099873 A1
published May 29, 2003);
2
Appeal 2007-3963
Application 10/981,183

2. The rejection of claims 2-4 over Katz in view of Brambilla
further in view of Deshpande et al. (US 2004/0197625 A1
published Oct. 7, 2004); and
3. The rejection of claim 5 over Katz in view of Bambilla further
in view of Cargneli et al. (US 2003/0008194 A1 published Jan.
9, 2003).

II. DISCUSSION
The issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants and the
Examiner is: Does Katz describe “a unitary manifold assembly” within the
meaning of claim 1?
We answer this question in the negative.
The Examiner finds that exhaust conduits 110 and 112 and conduit
108 forms “a unitary manifold assembly” as required by claim 1 (Ans. 3,
see also Katz, Fig. 2 and col. 4, ll. 24-33). In essence, the Examiner is
interpreting “unitary manifold assembly” as encompassing simple conduit-
type feed lines. We reject that interpretation.
“[A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
When referring to a piece of machinery or apparatus, a “manifold” is
commonly understood as “a chamber having several outlets through which a
3
Appeal 2007-3963
Application 10/981,183

liquid or gas is distributed or gathered.” “manifold.” Dictionary.com
Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 13 Dec. 2007. Appellant’s
Specification uses the word “manifold” in conformance with the commonly
understood definition (Specification, p. 4, ¶ 3 and Fig. 3). As illustrated in
Figure 3, a manifold has chambers within in a larger structure. A manifold
is a separate and distinct structure from simple piping.
We note that the further language “comprising a single fuel gas
passage” found in claim 1 does not negate the limiting affect of the word
“manifold” on the claim. The “passage” referenced in the claim must be the
type of chamber found in a manifold.
As pointed out by Appellants, Katz fails to describe any manifold
assembly, unitary or non-unitary, in the fuel cell power plant described
therein (Br. 6). Katz only describes the use of “conduits” 108, 110, and 112.
The Examiner has failed to identify a teaching or suggestion in the prior art
of the “unitary manifold assembly” required by claim 1.
The other prior art, as relied upon by the Examiner, does not cure the
deficiency discussed above, Therefore, the Examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for claims 1-5.

III. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

cam

4
Appeal 2007-3963
Application 10/981,183

WILL W. JONES
6 JUNIPER LANE
MADISON CT 06443

5