10407876 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2010)

Ex Parte Wheat et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 18, 2010

10407876 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte WILLIAM SPENCER WHEAT, KENNETH JOSEPH BUNK, and RALPH STANLEY WORSLEY ________________ Appeal 2009-004840 Application 10/407,876 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Decided: June 18, 2010 ________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-14. Claims 15-28, which are all of the other pending claims, stand withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2009-004840 Application 10/407,876 2 The Invention The Appellants claim an apparatus comprising a gas impermeable enclosure which contains a fuel processor and a water collection vessel. Claim 2 is illustrative: 2. An integrated fuel processor apparatus and enclosure, the integrated apparatus comprising: a fuel processor for producing a hydrogen-rich reformate comprising water and a combustible gas component; a gas impermeable enclosure for containing the fuel processor; and a collection vessel within the enclosure for receiving the water, the collection vessel having an opening so that any combustible gas component entrained in the water can evaporate to the interior of the enclosure and having a drain for directing the water out of the enclosure. The References Grasso 4,973,529 Nov. 27, 1990 Wilkinson 5,366,818 Nov. 22, 1994 Derflinger 2002/0025463 A1 Feb. 28, 2002 Kamegaya 2002/0155331 A1 Oct. 24, 2002 Edlund 2003/0056652 A1 Mar. 27, 2003 Demarest 2004/0099045 A1 May 27, 2004 (filed Nov. 26, 2002) Muramoto 2004/0166381 A1 Aug. 26, 2004 (filed Jan. 14, 2004) The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 2 and 7-12 over Derflinger in view of Edlund and Wilkinson; claims 3 and 4 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Muramoto; claims 5 and 6 Appeal 2009-004840 Application 10/407,876 3 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Demarest; claim 13 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Kamegaya; and claim 14 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Grasso. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Issue Have the Appellants indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Derflinger and Edlund would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a water collection vessel which is in an enclosure and has an opening so that any combustible gas component entrained in the water can evaporate into the interior of the enclosure (as required by the Appellants’ sole independent claim 2)? Findings of Fact Derflinger discloses “a fuel cell system having a gas generation unit for supplying a fuel rich medium to a fuel cell” (¶ 0002). The fuel cell system is particularly suitable in mobile units such as fuel cell vehicles (¶ 0011). The fuel cell system includes three separators (5, 6, 7) which discharge water into a common collection vessel (15) to be made available again to the gas generation system (2), the fuel cell unit (1) and other components of the fuel cell system (¶¶ 0015-18). Edlund discloses a fuel cell system comprising a fuel processor (12), a feed stream delivery system (17), a fuel cell stack (22) and an energy consuming device (25) which may be contained within an external housing which protects them from damage (¶¶ 0042, 0044). Appeal 2009-004840 Application 10/407,876 4 Analysis The Examiner argues (Ans. 4): it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a gas impermeable enclosure to house the fuel processor and the water collection vessel of Derflinger et al., because Edlund et al. teach the use of such enclosure to protect the fuel processor components from damage and move the components as a unit. It is also realized that the combustible gas component evaporate[d] from the water would be entrained inside the enclosure of Derflinger and Edlund. The Appellants argue (Br. 8): given that the fuel cell system of Derflinger is specifically designed and intended for mobile applications, one of skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify water reservoir 15 to include “an opening so that combustible gas component(s) entrained in the water can evaporate into the interior of the enclosure.” Providing such an opening in the collection vessel would undesirably enable water to splash and spill from the vessel in such applications. The Examiner responds that “the Applicant appears to be arguing the intended use of the fuel cell system, in contrast to the structure recited in claim 2. Because the structure of the Derflinger et al. combination is similar to that instantly disclosed, it obviously would be capable of functioning in mobile applications” (Ans. 12). The Examiner has not established that even if Edlund would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to place a protective housing around Derflinger’s fuel cell system, and even if that combination would have been suitable in mobile units, one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided Derflinger’s water receiver (15) with an opening so that any combustible gas component entrained in the water can evaporate into the interior of the Appeal 2009-004840 Application 10/407,876 5 housing. The Examiner does not point to a disclosure of such an opening in any reference. The Examiner merely provides the conclusory statement that “[i]t is also realized that the combustible gas component evaporate[d] from the water would be entrained inside the enclosure of Derflinger and Edlund” (Ans. 4). “‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner has not provided the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Conclusion of Law The Appellants have indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Derflinger and Edlund would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a water collection vessel which is in an enclosure and has an opening so that any combustible gas component entrained in the water can evaporate into the interior of the enclosure. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2 and 7-12 over Derflinger in view of Edlund and Wilkinson, claims 3 and 4 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Muramoto, claims 5 and 6 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Demarest, claim 13 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Kamegaya, and claim 14 over Derflinger in view of Edlund, Wilkinson and Grasso are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2009-004840 Application 10/407,876 6 kmm CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. LAW - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 2100 HOUSTON, TX 77252-2100