Ex Parte Warrier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12521373 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

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.
12/521,373 09/22/2009 Sunil G. Warrier PA-62.5234/130609.427USPC 7311
500 7590 07/01/2016
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
ERWIN, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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 and JEAN YAMANIS
____________

Appeal 2014-005523
Application 12/521,373
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 and 49. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2014-005523
Application 12/521,373

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on
appeal and are set forth below:

1. An interconnect assembly for a solid oxide fuel cell, comprising:

a porous interconnect comprising a plurality of first wires of a first
material and at least one second wire of a second material combined to form
a first portion defining a separator plate contact zone and a second portion
defining an electrode contact zone,

wherein said first material comprises an alumina-forming alloy or a
chromia-forming alloy,

wherein said second material comprises at least one of the following
materials: silver, gold, platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, and
combinations thereof.

10. The interconnect assembly of claim 1, wherein said first material
is an alumina-forming alloy.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Simpkins US 2004/0101742 A1 May 27, 2004
Warrier US 2004/0200187 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Lewis US 2007/0087250 A1 April 19, 2007

Appeal 2014-005523
Application 12/521,373

3

THE REJECTIONS

1. Claims 1–9, 11–16, 18–25, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warrier in view of Simpkins.1
2. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Warrier in view of Simpkins as applied to claims 1–9, 11–
16, 18 and 20–25 above, and further in view of Lewis.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and AFFIRM, and
add the following.
As an initial matter, we select claims 1 and 10 as representative of the
claims on appeal, based upon Appellants’ presented arguments. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014).

Rejection 1
Appellants’ claim 1 recites an interconnect assembly for a solid oxide
fuel cell (SOFC). The assembly includes a porous interconnect comprising a
plurality of first wires (37) of a first material (that can be alumina-
forming alloy or a chromia-forming alloy), and at least one second wire (38)
of a second material (that can be at least one of the following materials:

1 On page 2 of the Answer, the Examiner does not list claim 19 or 49 as
being rejected. However, on page 12 of the Answer, the Examiner discusses
claim 49 as being rejected. On page 8 of the Answer, the Examiner
discusses claim 49 as being rejected. Hence, we include claim 19 and 49 in
this rejection, and view the oversight as harmless error.
Appeal 2014-005523
Application 12/521,373

4
silver, gold, platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, and combinations
thereof), combined to form a first portion defining a separator plate contact
zone and a second portion defining an electrode contact zone. Appellants’
Figure 9, for example, shows the claimed configuration (reproduced below):

Figure 9 shows a cross-sectional view of a no-scale wire of a wire mesh that
interconnects a separator plate to an external surface of a cell cathode
electrode.

The Examiner’s positon for this rejection is set forth on pages 2–16 of
the Answer, which we refer to herein. Appellants argue that the
combination of Warrier in view of Simpkins fails to teach first wires
comprising alumina-forming or chromia-forming alloy, and at least one
second wire comprising silver, gold, platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium
or combinations thereof. Appeal Br. 9. However, we agree with the
Examiner’s response made on pages 14–15 of the Answer. Therein, the
Examiner explains how the applied art suggests the claimed combination of
materials. The Examiner states that Warrier teaches first wires made of
oxidation resistant conductive materials such as Ni-Cr alloys and Hastelloy
X, and that different wires may be used to facilitate functionality, and that
Simpson teaches first wires of an appropriate resist metal such as nickel
Appeal 2014-005523
Application 12/521,373

5
alloys and Hastealloy C-276 (a Ni-Cr alloy). The Examiner explains how
Simpkins also teaches to combine high conductivity shute wires with
appropriately resistant metals in order to improve conductivity. On page 3
of the Answer, the Examiner found that Warrier also teaches how
conductive materials such as Ag, Au, Pt Pd, and Rh (Warrier, para. [0010])
are useful in interconnects. We note that the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, the collective teachings as discussed by the Examiner in
the record support an obviousness determination.
Appellants also argue that there is no logical reason to incorporate the
teachings of Simpkins into Warrier. Appeal Br. 10. However, we agree
with the Examiner’s response made on page 16 (which we incorporate
herein), and are not convinced by Appellants’ argument for the reasons
provided by the Examiner in the record.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1.

Rejection 2
We consider claim 10 in this rejection, and claim 10 further limits the
first material recited in claim 1, to an alumina-forming material. The
Examiner relies upon the reference of Lewis for this teaching. Ans. 13–14,
16, 17.
Appellants’ position is set forth on pages 11–12 of the Appeal Brief
and also on page 1-2 of the Reply Brief. Therein, Appellants essentially
argue that Lewis is not relevant because Lewis involves a solid structure
(rather than a mesh-type structure). We are unconvinced by such argument
Appeal 2014-005523
Application 12/521,373

6
for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in response, made on pages 16
and 17 of the Answer. We add that if it is Appellants’ positon that Lewis is
non-analogous art, Appellants have not convincingly demonstrated that
Lewis is non-analogous art. The non-analogous art test considers the
threshold question whether a prior art reference is “‘too remote to be treated
as prior art.’” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The two separate tests for
determining whether a prior art reference is analogous are as follows: (i)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed; and (ii) if the reference is not within the inventor’s field of
endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. Clay, 966 F.2d at 658–659.
Appellants have not adequately addressed why Lewis is in the category of
non-analogous art.
We thus affirm Rejection 2.

DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).

ORDER
AFFIRMED