Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

11963308 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111963,308 12/21/2007
6147 7590 08/05/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. Kl-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jian Wu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
223943-1 9751
EXAMINER
GATEWOOD, DANIELS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIAN WU, TODD-MICHAEL STRIKER, STEPHANE RENOU,
and SIMON WILLIAM GAUNT
Appeal2015-002026
Application 11/963,308
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 9-14, 22, and 23. Claims 3---6, 8, and 15-
21 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed Dec. 21, 2007; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed Dec. 20, 2013; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.");
and Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002026
Application 11/963,308
BACKGROUND
Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) include an electrolyte sandwiched
between an anode and a cathode. Spec. 2. When formed in stacks, a
metallic or ceramic interconnect layer electrically joins the cathode of one
cell with the anode of another. Id. According to Appellants, providing a
bond layer between the interconnect and cathode layers can improve
electrical contact as well as dimensional tolerance between the interconnect
and the cathode. Id. Appellants disclose and claim SOFCs which include a
cathode bond layer having a specified pore structure. Claim 1 is illustrative
and reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A solid oxide fuel cell attached to at least one cathode
interconnect by a cathode bond layer, wherein the bond layer
comprises a microstructure having bimodal porosity and a total
porosity and a matrix of interconnected micropores and
macropores, wherein the micropores have an average pore
diameter of about 0.1 micron to about 0.3 micron and wherein
the macropores have an average pore diameter of at least about
2 microns and an aspect ratio of about 1 :32 to about 1 :2
wherein the fuel cell has an improved air flow rate and power
density.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 3
Claims 1, 7, 10, 12-14, 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
3 Ans. 2---6; Final Act. 9-12.
2
Appeal2015-002026
Application 11/963,308
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Konysheva,4 Ihringer,5 and Uchida. 6
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by determining that it would
have been obvious to substitute the cathode layer composition taught by
Uchida for the bond layer composition disclosed in Konysheva without
articulating a reason why one skilled in the art would have made the
substitution. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 3-7. We agree.
In support of the sole ground of rejection before us, the Examiner
found that Konysheva discloses a solid oxide fuel cell that includes a
cathode bond layer provided between a cathode and an interconnect. Ans. 3
(citing Konysheva Abstract). Acknowledging that Konysheva does not
teach the bond layer as comprising a bimodal porosity, the Examiner found
that Uchida discloses "using a multi-layer cathode system ... where the
material has a bimodal porosity.'' Id. (citing Uchida A15). The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to substitute Uchida's cathode
material for Konysheva's bond layer to "improve electrical conduction and
decrease contact resistance." Id. at 4. In response to Appellants' challenge
that the Examiner "does not cite any evidence ... and/or technical
4 Konysheva, E., Influence of different perovskite interlayers on the
electrical conductivity between Lao.6sSro.JMn03 and Fe/Cr-based steels, 177
Solid State Ionics, 923-30 (2006) ("Konysheva").
5 US 2005/0048356 Al, published Mar. 3, 2005 ("Ihringer").
6 Uchida, H., High Performance Electrode for Medium-Temperature Solid
Oxide Fuel Cells: Control of Microstructure ofLa(Sr)CoQ3 Cathodes with
Highly Dispersed Pt Electrocatalysts, 149 (1) Journal of the Electrochemical
Society, A13-18 (2002) ("Uchida").
3
Appeal2015-002026
Application 11/963,308
reasoning" to support a conclusion that the proposed substitution would
improve electrical conduction and decrease contact resistance, App. Br. 7,
the Examiner stated that both Konysheva's bond layer and Uchida's cathode
are perovskite structures, and for that reason, it would have been obvious to
substitute one for the other, Ans. 10-11.
"Rejections 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'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, as
Appellants correctly point out, the Examiner presented no evidence or
reasoning to support the stated finding that substituting Uchida' s cathode
material for Konysheva's bond layer would have yielded an improvement in
Konysheva's device. Neither are we persuaded that such a substitution
would have been obvious merely because Uchida and Konysheva disclose
perovskite structures, given that each reference uses the perovskite for a
different purpose. Konysheva discloses results of a study concerning
electrical resistance over time exhibited by three different perovskites when
used as bond layers in combination with various interconnect steels and a
Lao.6sSro.3Mn03 cathode. Konysheva 923. Uchida, on the other hand,
discloses results of a study concerning the electrocatalytic activity of a
microstructured perovskite cathode. Uchida A13. Other than the fact that
both those disclosures involved perovskite materials, the Examiner did not
present evidence or reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill would
4
Appeal2015-002026
Application 11/963,308
reasonably expect Uchida's cathode to serve as a substitute for Konysheva's
bond layer.7
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill
would have had a reason to use Uchida's cathode material in place of
Konysheva's bond layer. For that reason, we do not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 9-14, 22, and 23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7 The Examiner's reliance on Ihringer related solely to a choice of particle
size in a porous cathode layer, Ans. 3, and does not address or cure the
deficient obviousness analysis at issue in this appeal.
5