10758843 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2012)

Ex Parte Warrier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 5, 2012

10758843 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2012)

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. 10/758,843 01/16/2004 Sunil G. Warrier 062.04770-US-AB(02-508-2) 6939 34704 7590 01/05/2012 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. 900 CHAPEL STREET SUITE 1201 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510 EXAMINER CREPEAU, JONATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1725 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/05/2012 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, WAYDE R. SCHMIDT, RAYMOND C. BENN, JOHN G. SMEGGIL, SHIHONG G. SONG, and VENKATA R. VEDULA ____________ Appeal 2010-006860 Application 10/758,843 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006860 Application 10/758,843 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1 finally rejecting claims 1, 4-24, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, and 58-62, the only claims pending in the Application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The invention relates to an interconnect that is said to enhance the lifetime of solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) stacks. (Spec.3 [0002].) Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. In a solid oxide fuel cell, an interconnect assembly comprising: a separator plate having two opposed surfaces; and at least one electron conducting compliant interconnect having a first coefficient of thermal expansion, the compliant interconnect being in electrical communication with the separator plate, the compliant interconnect comprising a compliant superstructure having a first portion defining a separator plate contact zone permanently bonded to said separator plate and a second portion defining an electrode contact zone permanently bonded to an electrode having a second coefficient of thermal expansion different from said first coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the superstructure is porous to operating fuel cell gaseous materials, and wherein the interconnect comprises a woven substructure formed into said superstructure and defining the separator plate contact zone and the electrode contact zone. 1 Final Office Action mailed Jan. 5, 2009 (“Final”) 2 Appeal Brief filed Oct. 1, 2009 (“App. Br.”) 3 Specification filed Jan. 16, 2004. Appeal 2010-006860 Application 10/758,843 3 Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection (Br. 10): 1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 21, 23, 24, 49, 52, 59, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over WO 5224 in view of Xue5 (Ans.6 3-4); and 2. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-24, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, and 58-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nazmy7 in view of DE 4438 and Xue (id. at 5-8). Appellants’ arguments are directed to limitations common to independent claims 1 and 49.9 The sole issue raised for our consideration is: did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to bond the compliant superstructure to the electrode and separator plate in the SOFC stacks of the primary references based on the teachings of Xue? The Examiner finds (Ans. 4-6), and Appellants do not dispute (see generally, Br. 11-14), that the primary references disclose the invention as claimed in independent claims 1 and 49 with the exceptions that (1) WO 522 and the combination of Nazmy and DE 443 fail to teach the compliant superstructure being permanently bonded to the electrode, and (2) the Nazmy/DE 443 combination fails to teach the compliant superstructure being permanently bonded to the separator plate. However, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to have modified the structures of the primary references to include the aforementioned 4 WO 99/13522 published Mar. 18, 1999. 5 US 5,702,837 issued Dec. 30, 1997. 6 Examiner’s Answer mailed Jan. 12, 2010. 7 US 5,064,734 issued Nov. 12, 1991. 8 DE 195 17 443 A1 published Nov. 14, 1996. 9We do not view Appellants’ statements that “[n]othing in the art of record is believed to disclose or suggest th[e] structure[s]” recited in dependent claims 56 and 58 (Br. 13) as arguments in support of separate patentability of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). Appeal 2010-006860 Application 10/758,843 4 permanent bond(s) in view of Xue’s teaching that “adhesives between electrodes and interconnects of solid oxide fuel cells provide advantages such as increased integrity and reduced vibration.” (Ans. 10.) The Examiner relies, in particular, on column 4, line 62-column 5, line 3 of Xue, which reads: “Advantageously, . . . [the] anode/interconnect bonding material provides strong bonding between anode material and interconnect material with a bond shear strength greater than one megapascal. The strong bonding preserves the integrity and functionality of the SOFC stack against vibration and disturbance occur[ing] during operation.” (Ans. 4, 7.) Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make (and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing) the Examiner’s proposed modifications to the structures of the primary references. Appellants maintain Xue is directed to bonding parts made of ceramic materials, i.e., anode/anode and anode/interconnect pairs made from materials with relatively well-matched thermal expansion coefficients. (Br. 11.) According to Appellants, “it is well known in the art that bonding of a ceramic to a metal is a very challenging undertaking and requires materials that can ‘couple and react’ with the outermost atoms of the metal surface.” (Id. at 12.) As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 9), Appellants have not provided any evidence in support of this contention. Nor have Appellants refuted the Examiner’s finding that it would have been within the skill level of the ordinary artisan to modify Xue’s adhesive composition to provide the desired bond between ceramic and non-ceramic components (Ans. 8) since “component bonding in SOFC stacks” is “recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art” (Ans. 4, 7). (See generally, Br. 11-14.) The Examiner further maintains Appellants’ contentions with respect to the teachings of Xue are unsupported by Xue, which discloses the Appeal 2010-006860 Application 10/758,843 5 bonding of anodes containing nickel metal to the ceramic interconnects (i.e., Xue’s teaching is not limited to the bonding of ceramic materials as urged by Appellants). (See Ans. 9.) Appellants have not responded to this argument. Having considered the respective positions of the Examiner and Appellants, we are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in determining one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to bond the compliant superstructure to the electrode and separator plate in the SOFC stacks of the primary references based on the teachings of Xue. In our view, the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but find that a preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the Examiner’s conclusion of obvious as to appealed claims 1, 4-24, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, and 58-62. We adopt the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning, as set forth in the Final and the Answer, in sustaining both grounds of rejection.10 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED bar 10 We rely on the Examiner’s Response to Argument (Ans. 8-11) to address any additional arguments raised by Appellants and not expressly discussed herein.