Ex Parte Warrier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2014

10577754 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)

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