Ex Parte Warrier et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201410577754 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/577,754 04/27/2006 Sunil G. Warrier PA-62.5472/130609.405USPC 2823 500 7590 11/14/2014 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC 701 FIFTH AVE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER MARKS, JACOB B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2014 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 SUNIL G. WARRIER, JEAN YAMANIS, JAMES R. MAUS and BENOIT OLSOMMER ____________________ Appeal 2013-000196 Application 10/577,754 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 7 and 10 through 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The claims are directed to a solid oxide fuel cell stack. App. Br. 6. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: Appeal 2013-000196 Application 10/577,754 2 1. A solid oxide fuel cell stack formed of repeating cell units, each cell unit comprising: a solid oxide fuel cell having an anode side and a cathode side; an anode side frame; a cathode side frame; a bipolar plate having an anode side interconnect adjacent to the anode side frame and a cathode side interconnect adjacent to a cathode side frame of an adjacent repeating cell unit; a cathode side seal between the fuel cell and the cathode side frame; and an anode side seal between the fuel cell and the anode side frame, wherein at least one of the anode side interconnect, cathode side interconnect, anode side seal and cathode side seal are compliant, wherein the cathode side seal comprises a substantially flat compliant member, and wherein the anode side frame has a plurality of openings within which anode side seals and fuel cells are positioned, and wherein the cathode side frame and the cathode side seal include openings coinciding with the openings in the anode side frame. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Yasuo US 5,238,754 Aug. 24, 1993 Finn US 2003/0224238 Al Dec. 4, 2003 Steele US 6,794,075 B2 Sep. 21, 2004 Appeal 2013-000196 Application 10/577,754 3 Appellants (App. Br. 12) request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action: I. Claims 1–7, 10–12, 15–19, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Finn and Steele. II. Claims 13, 14, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Finn, Steele, and Yasuo. OPINION Prior Art Rejections1 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we REVERSE for the reasons presented by Appellants. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete statement of the rejections. Final Act. 2–10. Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a solid oxide fuel stack of repeating cell units where each cell unit comprises an electrode frame (anode and/or cathode) comprising a plurality of openings within which seals and/or fuel cells are positioned. App. Br. 6–11. The Examiner found Finn discloses solid oxide fuel cell stacks comprising a cell unit having separators 850 with an opening coinciding with the respective anode 820 and cathode 830 and their respective anode and cathode seals 840 and 845 where the separators 850 act as frames around the cathode and the anode sides. Final Act. 2–3; Finn Figures 36–38, 46, 47, ¶¶ 259–261, 268, and 271. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the fuel cell of Finn into a multiple cell array thereby creating multiple openings in view of Steele’s 1 We limit our discussion to independent claims 1, 10, 17, and 21. Appeal 2013-000196 Application 10/577,754 4 disclosure of multiple solid oxide fuel cells may be placed as an array on a substrate. Final Act. 3; Steele Figure 5; col. 5, ll. 11–40, col. 7, ll. 25–60. We agree with Appellants that Finn does not disclose a frame structure having openings within which individual seals and/or fuel cells are positioned as required by the subject matter of independent claims 1, 10, 17, and 21. App. Br. 13–15. The Examiner asserts gaskets 891 and 896 with respective openings 892 and 897 in Finn’s Figure 47 act as frames for the fuel cell. Ans. 12–13. However, as noted by Appellants, Finn’s gaskets 891 and 896 (Figure 47) do not show the frame structure claimed by Appellants and the Examiner direct us to no portion of Finn that discloses or suggest a frame structure where seals and/or fuel cells are positioned within openings of a frame. App. Br. 14–16. Further, the Examiner has not adequately explained how these gaskets meet the claimed frame structure having openings within which individual seals and/or fuel cells are positioned. Thus, even if Finn’s gaskets are duplicated to provide multiple openings for multiple cells, one skilled in the art would not arrive at the claimed invention because the gasket lacks the structure of an opening within which individual seals and/or fuel cells are positioned. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 10– 12, 15–19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Finn and Steele for the reasons presented by the Appellants and given above. The Examiner separately rejected claims 13, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Finn, Steele, and Yasuo. Final Act. 9– 10. We agree with Appellants that Yasuo does not overcome the above noted deficiency of Finn. App. Br. 18. Appeal 2013-000196 Application 10/577,754 5 Accordingly, we also reverse this rejection for the reasons given above and presented by Appellants. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–7 and 10–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation