Ex Parte Sanglan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12066700 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/066,700 09/10/2009
40582 7590
American Air Liquide, Inc,
Intellectual Property Dept.
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
03/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Patrick Sanglan
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.
Serie 6935 3023
EXAMINER
CARRICO, ROBERT SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte PATRICK SANGLAN
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
uECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 9-16 of Application 12/066,700
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 26, 2012).
Appellant 1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 L' Air Liquide Societe Anonyme Pour L'Etude Et L'Exploitation des
Procedes Georges Claude is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
RACKGROUNn
The '700 Application describes a fixed installation for supplying
electrical power. Spec. 1. Figure 1 of the '700 Application shows an
embodiment of Appellant's fixed installation:
20
f
.i
\
,/:.-:.'.;:-;_:> :::~7:;;::r;:::r;,;\:;;;;;:~y.:>;V<'<;-::;;:;;;z.--:>-::::;:;'.:;
5i 101 ls h 11 ii ~ (s
Figure 1 is a schematic view of an embodiment of
Appellant's fixed installation
As shown in Figure 1, the fixed installation comprises enclosed space
1. Id. at 2. Fuel cell unit 2, fuel supply 3, and electrical control cabinet 4 are
located within enclosed space 1. Id. Enclosed space 1 is supported a small
distance above ground 5 by at least four short blocks 6. Id. Thus, floor 7 of
enclosed space 1 and ground 5 define intermediate volume 8. Id. Fan 12
sucks air from intermediate volume 8 into enclosed space 1, thereby
regulating the temperature within enclosed space 1. Id. at 2-3.
Claim 9 is representative of the '700 Application's claims and is
reproduced below:
9. A fixed installation for supplying electrical power,
compnsmg:
a portion of ground; and
a fuel cell supplied with air and with fuel, positioned in
an enclosed space, wherein the enclosed space is placed on the
portion of ground via support blocks, an air inlet into the
2
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
enclosed space opening onto a volume bet\veen the enclosed
space and the ground.
Br. 17 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schmidt2 and Tanaka. 3 Final
Act. 2.
2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Schmidt, Tanaka, and Rojo. 4 Final Act. 5.
3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schmidt, Tanaka, and
Sickler. 5 Final Act. 5.
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Schmidt, Tanaka, and Skonieczny. 6 Final
Act. 6.
2 US 6,783,882 B2, issued August 31, 2004.
3 US 2002/0187380 Al, published December 12, 2002.
4 US 2003/0124408 Al, published July 3, 2003.
5 US 3,343,326, issued September 26, 1967.
6 US 4,058,956, issued November 22, 1977.
3
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Schmidt and Tanaka, as evidenced by
Donaldson Filtration Solutions. 7 Final Act. 7.
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Schmidt and Tanaka, as evidenced by
Yamada. 8 Final Act. 7.
DISCUSSION
Claim 9 is the only independent claim on appeal, while claims 10-16
depend from claim 9. For reasons that will become apparent, we limit our
discussion to the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over the
combination of Schmidt and Tanaka.
In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner found that Schmidt describes a fuel
cell stack disposed in an enclosed space. Final Act. 3 (citing Schmidt
Fig. 3). The Examiner also found that the enclosure includes an inlet for
suppiying air to the fuei ceH. Id. The Examiner further found that Schmidt
does not explicitly disclose support blocks. Id. With respect to Tanaka, the
Examiner found:
Tanaka discloses a fuel cell housing (abstract)
comprising frames (12, 14, 16 and 18). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
invention, to modify the enclosure of Schmidt to include the
frames of Tanaka to fix a side of the casing to a structure
([0029], [0034], [00/36]). While Tanaka discloses the frames
7 Micro filtration Solutions, Donaldson Filtration Solutions (October 31,
2011 2:30 PM),
http://www.emea.donaldson.com/en/filtermedia/microfiltration/index.html.
8 US 2005/0106430 Al, published May 19, 2005.
4
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
are used to fix the casing to a vehicle body, the frames appear
equally capable to fixing the casing to any structure, including
the intended use as in the instant claim of fixing the casing to
the ground. . . . Additionally, the Schmidt fuel cell appears
capable of operating in any orientation. In view of this, it
would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of
the invention, in addressing the problem of fixing the fuel cell
to a structure, to try placing the frames of Tanaka on the fuel
cell taught by Schmidt from a known set of sides including the
side with the air inlet (112) with a reasonable expectation of
success.
Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over the
combination of Schmidt and Tanaka should be reversed for two reasons:
( 1) the Examiner reversibly erred by finding that the combination of Schmidt
and Tanaka describes or suggests an installation in which an enclosed space
containing a fuel cell is placed on a portion of ground via support blocks,
Br. 8-9, and (2) the Examiner reversibly erred by finding that the
combination of Schmidt and Tanaka describes or suggests an installation in
which an air inlet into the enclosed space opens onto a volume between the
enclosed space and the ground, id. at 9--10. As explained below, both of
Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error.
First, the Examiner concluded that the limitation requiring the
enclosed space to be placed on a portion of ground via support blocks to be
an intended use. Final Act. 3. The Examiner then found that Tanaka's
frames are capable of fixing Schmidt's casing to any structure and, therefore,
were capable of performing the intended use recited in claim 9. Id. In
response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner advanced two lines of
arguments, neither of which are persuasive.
5
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
The Examiner defended the conclusion that the positioning of the ±hel
cell enclosure on the ground via support blocks was not entitled to
patentable weight. In particular, the Examiner argued that "[a] portion of
ground does not provide any structure to the fuel cell apparatus as presently
claimed (placed on the portion of ground)." Answer 2. We are not
persuaded by the Examiner's assertion. The Examiner's focus on a fuel cell
apparatus is inconsistent with claim 9's language. Claim 9 is directed to a
fixed installation comprising both a portion of ground and an enclosed space
containing a fuel cell that is positioned on the portion of ground.
In the alternative, the Examiner argues that claim 9 uses open
language. Id. at 3. "It is NOT required that the support blocks be directly
attached to the ground. Assuming that the fuel cell is, at some point, 'on' a
structure and not free-floating, the fuel cell would be on the portion of
ground via support blocks." Id. (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by
this argument because the Examiner's conclusion regarding the scope of
claim 9 is overly broad when considered in view of the '700 Application's
Specification.
During examination, the proposed claims are given "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--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, after reading Appellant's Specification, would have understood
that Appellant intended to use the thermal inertia of the ground to help
6
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
regulate the temperature of the air taken in by the air intake and used to cool
the enclosed space. See generally Spec. In view of this disclosure, the
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Appellant's
fixed installation cannot include any arbitrary structure located in the space
between the floor of the enclosed space and the ground. The Examiner,
therefore, erred by giving the language of claim 9 that requires positioning
of the enclosed space on the ground via the support blocks an unreasonably
broad interpretation.
Second, the Examiner found that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place
Tanaka's frames on any side of Schmidt's fuel cell. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner also argues that
the physical position of the air inlet is not claimed. The claim
requires that the air inlet into the enclosed space and that the air
inlet open onto a volume between the enclosed space and the
ground. The air inlet 112 of Schmidt opens into an enclosed
space (104; Fig. l ). The air inlet opens to an exterior of the
enclosed space and therefore opens onto a volume between the
enclosed space and the ground.
Answer 3.
We begin by considering the interpretation of the claim term "between
the enclosed space and the ground." As discussed above, during
examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054--55.
In the context of the '700 Application's Specification, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ordinary meaning of the
word "between" to be "in the time, space, or interval that separates." See,
e.g., Between I Definition of Between by Merriam-Webster, Merriam-
Webster.com (February 18, 2016), httn://vv\vw.merriam-
7
Appeal2014-004940
Application 12/066,700
\vebster.corn/dictionarv/bet\veen. The Specification does not suggest that
the word "between" should have a non-standard definition in the context of
the '700 Application.
Therefore, contrary to the Examiner's contention, claim 9 does
specify a physical position for the air inlet. In various embodiments of
Schmidt's fuel cell, air inlet 112 is shown as being located either on top of
the enclosure or on one of the enclosure's sides. See Schmidt Figs. 1, 3, 4.
None of these embodiments describe the air inlet as located on the bottom of
the enclosed space. Nor has the Examiner explained why, in the absence of
hindsight, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have positioned the air
inlet of Schmidt's fuel cell in such a position.
Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 9 of the '700 Application.
Because claims 10-16 depend from claim 9, we also reverse the rejections of
these claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 9--
16 of the '700 Application.
REVERSED
8