12099221 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2014)

Ex Parte Saloka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 2014

12099221 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2014)

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. 12/099,221 04/08/2008 George Steven Saloka 81161876 3835 28395 7590 02/21/2014 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2014 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 GEORGE STEVEN SALOKA and ALLEN H. MEITZLER ________________ Appeal 2012-010570 Application 12/099,221 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-010570 Application 12/099,221 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a system and method for dispersing liquid water within a fuel cell. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A fuel cell system comprising: a membrane electrode; a plate having a surface adjacent the membrane electrode, the surface having a flow field formed therein to deliver a fluid to the membrane electrode; an actuator configured to mechanically excite the plate to disperse liquid water within the flow field; and an electronic control module configured to monitor a pressure associated with the flow field and to activate the actuator based on the pressure. The References Leboe US 6,893,755 B2 May 17, 2005 Kimura US 2005/0282047 A1 Dec. 22, 2005 Nishimura (as translated) JP 2002-184430 A June 28, 2002 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 3-10 and 14-17 over Nishimura in view of Leboe and claims 11-13 over Nishimura in view of Leboe and Kimura. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the independent claims (1, 9, and 17).1 Those claims require an actuator (such as a 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Kimura for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claims (Ans. 7). Appeal 2012-010570 Application 12/099,221 3 piezoelectric transducer) that is activated based upon a pressure associated with a fuel cell. Nishimura assists water removal from fuel cell flow passages by use of a vibrating diaphragm driven by a piezoelectric device activated according to a driver voltage signal impressed from a drive circuit (¶¶ 0011, 0022). Leboe controls fuel cell system hydrogen supply to avoid hydrogen pressure fluctuations in the hydrogen feed lines between the hydrogen generator and the fuel cell (abstract; col. 1, ll. 24-54; col. 2, ll. 34-49). The Examiner argues that “[t]he skilled artisan could have modified the fuel cell system of Nishimura et al. to measure pressure decreases instead of operating voltage such as taught by Leboe in order to determine that the output of the fuel cell would be affected” (Ans. 6) and that “[t]he substitution of the known method of Leboe of measuring pressure decreases to determine stack function for the method of Nishimura et al. of measuring voltage output to determine stack function would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”, id., “presuming . . . that the skilled artisan would recognize the link between water in the flow field and pressure in the flow field” (Ans. 8). The Examiner has not provided evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that link. The Examiner has provided mere speculation, and such speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. Appeal 2012-010570 Application 12/099,221 4 DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3-10, and 14-17 over Nishimura in view of Leboe and claims 11-13 over Nishimura in view of Leboe and Kimura are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cdc