Ex Parte Schwab

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2011

10578461 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CLEMENS SCHWAB
________________

Appeal 2010-003579
Application 10/578,461
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003579
Application 10/578,461

2
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 5 through 14. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a fuel system and its
method of use. Claim 5 is illustrative:
5. A fuel cell system for mobile use comprising:
a fuel cell unit for generating electrical energy and fuel
cell waste products;
a cooling circuit assigned to the fuel cell unit and having
a heat exchanger downstream of the fuel cell unit;
an adsorption accumulator assigned to the fuel cell unit
and forming a heat store adapted to release heat when adsorbing
the fuel cell waste products, the adsorption accumulator being
operatively thermally connected to the heat exchanger;
a first line connected to the fuel cell unit discharging the
fuel cell waste products from the fuel cell unit; and
a second line connecting the first line to the adsorption
accumulator for feeding the fuel cell waste products to the
adsorption accumulator.
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 5-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Honda (JP 10-144333, published May 29, 1998).

Appeal 2010-003579
Application 10/578,461

3
ISSUE
Did Appellant establish that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Honda teaches the first and second lines capable of feeding fuel cell
waste products from the fuel cell unit to the adsorption accumulator as
required by claim 5 and that the fuel cell waste products are fed to the
adsorption accumulator as required by claim 7 within the meaning of §
102(b)? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference describes, either expressly or under the principle of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

FACTUAL FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSION
Appellant argues that Honda does not teach first and second lines
capable of feeding fuel cell waste products from the fuel cell unit to the
adsorption accumulator as required by claim 5. (App. Br. 5 and 6). In
addition, Appellant argues that Honda does not teach that fuel cell waste
products are fed to the adsorption accumulator as required by claim 7. Id. at
8 and 9. We agree with both of these arguments.
While the Examiner alleges (Ans. 3-5 and 8-15) that Honda’s Figures
1 and 2 and paragraphs [0009]-[0013], [0018]-[0020], and [0023] support
the Examiner’s finding that Honda teaches the disputed claim features, a
close examination of these portions of Honda reveals that nowhere does
Honda teach first and second lines capable of accepting fuel cell waste
Appeal 2010-003579
Application 10/578,461

4
products from the fuel cell unit and feeding them to the adsorption
accumulator as required by claim 5 or that the fuel cell waste products are
fed to the adsorption accumulator as required by claim 7.
Indeed, as correctly pointed out by Appellant, “Honda et al. does not
even mention what happens with waste products of fuel cell 2.” (App. Br.
6). In this regard, Honda’s Figures 1 and 2 plainly illustrate that heat
exchange fluid passing through heat exchanger 25 is in a closed system and
separate from any water produced in the fuel cell. Id.
The Examiner simply fails to direct us to any portion of Honda that
teaches the disputed claim features.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-14
under § 102(b).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED
bar