Ex Parte Warrier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2011

10622881 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2011)

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.
10/622,881 07/18/2003 Sunil G. Warrier 062.04871-US-AA
(02-510)
2745
34704 7590 02/16/2011
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
EXAMINER
HODGE, ROBERT W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SUNIL G. WARRIER,
JEAN YAMANIS, SONIA TULYANI,
and RAYMOND C. BENN
__________

Appeal 2010-004072
Application 10/622,881
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-004072
Application 10/622,881

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12, and 24-26.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a seal assembly for a solid
oxide fuel cell (SOFC) stack. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A seal assembly for a solid oxide fuel cell stack,
comprising:

at least two fuel cells each comprising an electrolyte
having a cathode layer on one side and an anode layer on the
other side, and at least one bipolar plate between the at least
two fuel cells, the at least two fuel cells and the bipolar plate
collectively defining at least two fuel cell components having
opposed surfaces; and

a continuous fiber tow wrapped into a closed-loop
structure forming a substantially gas impermeable seal between
said opposed surfaces.

App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).3
The only Examiner’s rejection on appeal is the rejection of claims 1-3,
6, 7, 9-12, and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Keegan4 and Gottzmann.5

2 Claims 5, 8, and 13-21 are also pending. The Examiner has indicated that
claim 5 is allowed, claim 8 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected
base claim, and claims 13-21 are withdrawn from consideration. Final
Office Action dated August 27, 2008.
3 Appeal Brief dated August 10, 2009.
4 US 2003/0215689 A1 published November 20, 2003.
5 US 6,139,810 issued October 31, 2000.
Appeal 2010-004072
Application 10/622,881

3
B. ISSUE
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in concluding
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute the seal of Keegan with “a continuous fiber tow wrapped into a
closed-loop structure” in view of the teachings of Gottzmann.
C. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Keegan discloses a seal member 80 for a
solid oxide fuel cell stack but finds that “Keegan does not teach that the seal
is a continuous fiber seal” as recited in the claims on appeal. Ans. 3.6 The
Examiner finds that Gottzmann discloses a solid oxide tube and shell reactor
wherein the solid oxide tubes are sealed with a continuous fiber tow
wrapped into a closed loop structure which forms a substantially gas
impermeable seal, i.e., sliding seals 48 and 50. Ans. 3.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to substitute the seal member of Keegan with the seal
of Gottzmann to “prevent any of the reactant gases from leaking out of the
stack thus preventing any explosion hazards.” Ans. 4.
The Appellants argue that Gottzmann “contains teaching concerning
the seal that make the seal incompatible with the teachings of Keegan.”
App. Br. 9. In particular, the Appellants argue that the seal of Gottzmann is
a sliding seal and there is nothing in Keegan or Gottzmann that would lead
one of ordinary skill in the art to believe that the sliding seal of Gottzmann
could be incorporated into Keegan with any expectation of success. App.
Br. 11.

6 Examiner’s Answer dated September 29, 2009.
Appeal 2010-004072
Application 10/622,881

4
The Appellants’ argument is supported by the record. In particular,
Keegan discloses:
In order for the electrochemical cell 10 to function
properly, a pressure tight seal which can be disposed between
the flow plate 25 and the remainder of the fuel cell is required
to ensure oxidant and fuel flow to the anode and cathode, (as
appropriate), and to prevent mixing of the two streams. . . .
[T]o ensure a pressure tight seal, seal member 80 is capable of
withstanding the pressures, temperature, and chemical
environment within an operating SOFC.

Keegan, para. [0037].
Gottzmann, on the other hand, discloses:
The seal areas preferably are maintained at moderate
temperatures of between about 250° C. and 650° C. These
relatively low temperatures, and the requirement that the sliding
seals have to seal only against a small pressure differential and
the fact that moderate leak rates can be tolerated by the process
of the invention creates considerable degrees of freedom in seal
selection.

Gottzmann 9:56-62; see also Gottzmann 10:42-44 (“[s]ubstantial leaks about
seals 48 can be tolerated”).
This disclosure in Gottzmann undermines the Examiner’s motivation
for combining the teachings of Keegan and Gottzmann, i.e., to “prevent any
of the reactant gases from leaking out of the stack thus preventing any
explosion hazards.” Ans. 4. Significantly, the Examiner has not directed us
to any evidence establishing that the seals 48 and 50 disclosed in Gottzmann
would have been a suitable substitute for the seal member 80 disclosed in
Keegan. Therefore, we cannot sustain the § 103(a) rejection on appeal.

Appeal 2010-004072
Application 10/622,881

5
D. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

sld

BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN CT 06510