Ex Parte Rousseau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

13020892 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/020,892 02/04/2011 Ingrid A. Rousseau
104102 7590 02/18/2016
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
P005017-R&D-MJL 3372
EXAMINER
WANG, EUGENIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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 INGRID A. ROUSSEAU, RICHARD PRYCE ATKINS
and WILLIAM R. RODGERS
Appeal2014-004172
Application 13/020,892
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004172
Application 13/020,892
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 11-19 and 21-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants' invention is directed to methods of joining bipolar plate
assemblies. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 11 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
11. A method comprising:
providing a first plate and a second plate of a bipolar
plate assembly for a fuel cell stack, the first plate having a first
border and the second plate having a second border that
generally faces and confronts the first border;
locating an adhesive bond material on the first plate
adjacent the first border, on the second plate adjacent the
second border, or on both the first and second plates adjacent
the respective first and second borders;
bringing the first plate and the second plate together so
that the first and second borders confront each other and locate
the adhesive bond material between the first and second
borders; and
hardening the adhesive bond material to form a dried
adhesive bond layer that joins the first plate and the second
plate together.
App. Br. 26 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants (App. Br. 6) request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner's final office action:
I. Claims 16 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
2
Appeal2014-004172
Application 13/020,892
IL Claims 11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Blunk '933 (US 2005/0031933 Al, published
February 10, 2005) and Blunk' 108 (US 2004/0157108 Al, published
August 12, 2004).
III. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blunk '933, Blunk' 108, and Horiuchi (US 2004/0028987 Al, published
February 12, 2004).
IV. Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blunk '933, Blunk '108, and Bae (US 2009/0029218 Al, published January
29, 2009).
V. Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blunk '933, Blunk' 108, and Hayashi (US 2009/0068540 Al, published
March 12, 2009).
OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
The Examiner found that claims 16 and 22 are indefinite because the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite
degree for the terms "about" and "substantially" respectively used in the
language of these claims. Final Act. 3.
We do not find the Examiner's reasons persuasive for the reasons
provided by Appellants. App. Br. 11-12. As argued by Appellants, the
terms "about" and "substantially" would be reasonably understood by a
person skilled in the art based on paragraphs 11 and 16 of the Specification.
Id. The Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art
would not have been able to assess the meaning of these terms based on
paragraphs 11 and 16 of the Specification Appellants' disclosure.
3
Appeal2014-004172
Application 13/020,892
Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
claimed invention when viewed in the context of the Specification.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that one skilled in the art would have joined a first and second
plates to form a bipolar plate assembly by locating an adhesive bond
material between the first and second plates as required by the subject matter
of independent claim 11 based on the teachings of Blunk '933?2
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we answer in the negative and AFFIRM for the reasons
presented by the Examiner and add the following.
The subject matter of independent claim 11 is directed to a method of
joining bipolar plate assemblies by locating an adhesive bond material on the
first plate adjacent to the first border, on the second plate adjacent to the
1 Appellants present specific arguments only for independent claim 11 and
do not present separate arguments for claims 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 in
Rejection II. See Appeal Brief, generally. Appellants rely on these
arguments to also address the separate rejections of claims 12, 16 and 22
(Rejections III-V). Id. at 15-18. Therefore, we limit our discussion to
claim 11 and claims 12-19 and 21-23 (Rejections II-IV) stand or fall with
claim 11. Appellants present additional arguments for the alternate rejection
of claim 22 (Rejection V). Id. at 17-18. These arguments will be addressed
separately.
2 A discussion of Blunk '108, relied upon by the Examiner in Rejection II, is
unnecessary for disposition of the present appeal. The Examiner relied upon
this reference for features not related to the dispositive issue.
4
Appeal2014-004172
Application 13/020,892
second border, or on both the first and second plates adjacent to the
respective first and second borders to form a bonded assembly.
The Examiner found Blunk '933 renders the subject matter of
independent claim 11 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103 by teaching a
method of making a bipolar plate assembly 56 comprising the steps of
providing a first plate 58 having a first border 92 and a second plate 60
having a second border 90 facing the first border, locating an adhesive 112,
bringing together the first and second border so that the adhesive is located
between the first and second borders, and curing/hardening the adhesive to
impart structural cohesiveness. Final Act. 6; Blunk '933 Figures 1--4; i-fi-f l,
19,27,28,54,58---60.
Appellants argue the Examiner merely points out that Blunk '933
discloses an adhesive bond material is located on only one surface or first
border and has not shown that either Blunk '933 teaches or discloses
"locating an adhesive bond material" as required by the subject matter of
independent claim 11. App. Br. 12-13; Blunk '933 i154.
We are unpersuaded by this argument and agree with the Examiner's
determination that Blunk '933 discloses locating an adhesive bond material
on one surface of a plate prior to bonding two plates together to form a
bipolar assembly. Final Act. 6; Blunk '933 i154. Appellants have not
adequately explained how the subject matter of independent claim 1 is
different from the method of joining plates to form bipolar plate assemblies
disclosed by Blunk '933. Appellants have not directed us to any portion of
Blunk '933 or any other evidence supporting the allegation that Blunk '933
does not disclose locating the adhesive between plates of a bipolar assembly
as required by the subject matter of independent claim 11.
5
Appeal2014-004172
Application 13/020,892
Claim 22
The subject matter of claim 22 requires an adhesive bond layer
substantially free of gas bubbles to ensure intimate contact and bonding
between the first and second plates. Spec. i-f 10.
The Examiner found Blunk '933 does not specifically disclose an
adhesive layer free of bubbles. Final Act. 12. Hayashi teaches the use of a
tacky adhesive to bond fuel cell components. Hayashi i-fi-154--55. The
Examiner found Hayashi discloses must be closely applied to the entire seal
surface without allowing a bubble or lift because such faults are difficult to
correct afterwards. Final Act. 12; Hayashi i-f 55. The Examiner determined
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use an adhesive layer
without bubbles in making the assembly of Bunk '933 to improve sealing
and prevent hard to fix faults. Final Act. 12.
We have considered Appellants' argument with respect to Hayashi
and agree with the Examiner's determination of obviousness. App. Br. 18;
Final Act. 12; Ans. 19. Moreover, Appellants have not adequately explained
why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of using an adhesive
layer free of bubbles, as taught by Hayashi, in the method of adhesively
bonding a first and second plates of Blunk '933. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary
skill in the art); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
11-19 and 21-23 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given
above.
6
Appeal2014-004172
Application 13/020,892
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 16 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed.
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 11-19 and 21-23 are
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
7