Ex Parte Weispfenning et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2015

11936614 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2015)

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.
11/936,614 11/07/2007 Thomas Weispfenning GP-307288-FCA-CHE 1156
65798 7590 06/15/2015
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2015 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 THOMAS WEISPFENNING, MARC BECKER, and
MATTHIAS HAMPEL
____________

Appeal 2013-004975
Application 11/936,6141
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is GM Global
Technology Operations LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2013-004975
Application 11/936,614

2
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and reads
(emphasis added):
1. A fuel cell system comprising:
a first fuel cell stack including a cathode inlet line and a
cathode exhaust gas line;
a second fuel cell stack including a cathode inlet line and
a cathode exhaust gas line;
a first water vapor transfer unit that includes flow
channels and membranes for providing humidity to a cathode
inlet gas flowing through the cathode inlet line for the first
stack or the second stack; and
a second water vapor transfer unit that includes flow
channels and membranes for providing humidity to a cathode
inlet gas flowing through the other of the first stack or the
second stack, wherein the cathode inlet lines and the cathode
exhaust gas lines are configured so that the water vapor
transfer unit that humidifies the cathode inlet air to one of the
fuel cell stacks receives humidification from the cathode
exhaust gas in the cathode exhaust gas line from the other fuel
cell stack.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
(a) claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 10–12 as unpatentable over the combined
prior art of Schaefer (US 2006/0234093 A1 published Oct. 19, 2006) with
either of Voss (US 6,106,964 issued Aug. 22, 2000) (Ans. 3–9) or AAPA
(Appellants’ Admission of Prior Art, Fig. 1) (Ans. 9–19); and

(b) claims 5, 7, and 9 as unpatentable over Schaefer with AAPA (Ans.
19, 20).

Appeal 2013-004975
Application 11/936,614

3
ANALYSIS
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the
subject matter of the claims on appeal is unpatentable under § 103 in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art
rejections for essentially the reasons explained in the Answer, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements
would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the
improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
Schaefer exemplifies that it was known that the cathode exhaust of
one fuel cell to be recycled to the cathode inlet air of another fuel cell in
order to, e.g., control cathode side pressures, efficiently use unused oxygen
in the cathode effluent, and to help humidify the cathode inlet air of another
fuel cell (Ans. 3, 4; Schaefer ¶¶ 32, 33, Fig. 4). There is no dispute that the
admitted prior art of Fig. 1 describes the use of a first and second water
vapor transfer unit to provide humidity to the respective cathode inlet gas
flowing through the first and second fuel cell stacks as claimed except it
does not configure the cathode inlet and outlet lines “so that the water vapor
transfer unit that humidifies the cathode inlet air to one of the fuel cell stacks
receives humidification from the cathode exhaust gas in the cathode exhaust
Appeal 2013-004975
Application 11/936,614

4
gas line from the other fuel cell stack” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner
found it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
have likewise used first and second water vapor transfer units as shown in
AAPA Fig. 1 in the respective cathode feed lines in Schaefer. Ans. 11.
Although Voss does not exemplify first and second water vapor
transfer units explicitly as in AAPA Fig. 1, Voss describes the use of a
combined heat and humidity exchanger (CHHE) whereby water and heat are
transferred from an exhaust stream (cathode outlet stream) to a reactant gas
supply stream (cathode inlet stream) to heat and humidify same before
entering a fuel cell (Voss col. 4, ll. 11–29; Ans. 4). The Examiner found it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have
likewise used a CHHE as exemplified in Voss in the respective cathode feed
lines in Schaefer, for efficient transfer of water vapor from an exhaust
stream to an supply stream. Ans. 4; see also Ans. 23 for Examiner’s
annotations of Schaefer’s Fig. 4.
Appellants’ main arguments are that 1) neither Schaefer or Voss show
first and second vapor transfer units (App. Br. 9, 10), 2) the Examiner’s
proposed reason for modifying Schaefer for increased efficiency is not
sufficient (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2), and 3) that AAPA does not show the
required cross coupling of water vapor transfer units (App. Br. 13). These
arguments are not persuasive, since as pointed out by the Examiner, they fail
to address the applied prior art as a whole (see, e.g., Ans. 20, 21, 25, 26).
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that
one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would
have predictably used a first and second water vapor transfer unit such as
exemplified in AAPA, or a CHHE as exemplified in Voss, for the two
Appeal 2013-004975
Application 11/936,614

5
cathode inlet streams of Schaefer (which each have a cathode outlet stream
from another fuel cell recycled thereto), to take advantage of the known
efficiencies of such devices (e.g., Ans. 3, 4; generally, App. Br.; Reply Br.).
“[O]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all
that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Kubin, 561
F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted) (citing In re O’Farrell,
853 F.2d 894, 903‒04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). As the Supreme Court has noted,
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l., 550 U.S. at 416. Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in concluding that their claimed combination of familiar
elements is such a case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claim 1
based on Schaefer with either of Voss or AAPA.
To the extent that Appellants separately argue any of the remaining
claims, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
obviousness determinations. App. Br. 14–17. Appellants did not
sufficiently address or further distinguish the claimed subject matter based
on the additional limitations of the remaining claims. Id.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of all the claims
on appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
bar