Ex Parte Becker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11304198 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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. 11/304,198 12/15/2005 Marc Becker GP-306908 4712 65798 7590 09/17/2012 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 200 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER MARKS, JACOB B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARC BECKER, OLIVER MAIER, and PETER WILLIMOWSKI ____________________ Appeal 2011-009336 Application 11/304,198 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before RICHARD TORCZON, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009336 Application 11/304,198 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 3, 8, 9, 14-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants state that the invention relates to a technique for determining the relative humidity of a cathode input airflow to a fuel cell stack. (Spec. Para. [0001].) Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 14. A fuel cell system comprising: a fuel cell stack including a cathode inlet and a cathode outlet; a water vapor transfer unit for humidifying a cathode inlet airflow sent to the cathode inlet; and a controller for determining the relative humidity of the cathode inlet airflow, said controller determining a flow of water through the water vapor transfer unit, determining a flow of water into the cathode inlet using the flow of water through the water vapor transfer unit and a flow of water through ambient air, and calculating the relative humidity at the cathode inlet using the flow of water into the cathode inlet. (Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 21.) THE REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aramaki (US 6,635,374 B1, issued October 21, 2003) in view of Koch (US 1 Appeal Brief filed November 9, 2010, hereinafter “App. Br.” and Claims App’x, respectively. Appeal 2011-009336 Application 11/304,198 3 6,102,037, issued August 15, 2000). (Examiner’s Answer, dated January 20, 2011, “Ans.” 4-6.) II. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 9,2 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aramaki in view of Koch and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2002/0039674 A1, published April 4, 2002) and Westbrook et al. (US 6,067,844, issued May 30, 2000). (Ans. 6-12.) ISSUE The dispositive issue on appeal is: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Aramaki discloses a water vapor transfer unit as recited in the claims? DISCUSSION The Examiner’s position is that the water supply system disclosed in Aramaki, which injects water into the air supply for cooling a fuel cell, controls the quantity of water supplied to the fuel cell, and thus is a water vapor transfer unit. (Ans. 4.) Appellants contend that Aramaki’s water supply system, which includes a water supply valve and a water tank, is not a water vapor transfer unit as recited in the claims. (App. Br. 13.) Appellants argue that “water vapor transfer unit” is a common term of art and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered a water tank and supply valve to be a water vapor transfer unit. (App. Br. 13.) For support, Appellants point to the Specification, which states that: 2 The Examiner does not include claim 9 in the heading for this rejection (Ans. 6), but addresses claim 9 in the body of the rejection (Ans. 10-11). Appeal 2011-009336 Application 11/304,198 4 It is known in the art to use a water vapor transfer (WVT) unit to capture some of the water in the cathode exhaust, and use the separated water to humidify the cathode airflow input. . . . The airflow from the compressor 14 on the line 16 is directed through one side of a WVT unit 20 and the cathode exhaust gas on the line 18 is directed through another side of the WVT unit 20. The WVT unit 20 includes permeation membranes or other porous materials, as is well understood in the art, that collects water vapor and liquid water in the cathode exhaust gas and uses this water to humidify the airflow to the cathode input. (Spec. Paras. [0006], [0007].) We agree with Appellants, that it is clear from its description in the Specification that a water vapor transfer unit is understood in the art to have certain functional and structural features, including the structural features necessary to collect water vapor and liquid water from the cathode exhaust gas of the fuel cell and to recycle it to the cathode input of the fuel cell. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification is ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,’ and . . .‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”’) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, although not expressly recited in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such structural features to be present in the water vapor transfer unit. Aramaki discloses a water supply system that comprises a water tank and a water supply valve. (Col. 2, ll. 61-66.) The water is injected into the water intake path through the supply valve, compressed, cooled, and then Appeal 2011-009336 Application 11/304,198 5 supplied to the fuel cell. (Col. 1, ll. 51-56.) Aramaki does not disclose that some of the water in the cathode exhaust is captured and used to humidify the cathode airflow input, the function performed by a water vapor transfer unit as described in the Specification. (Spec. Paras. [0006], [0007].) Aramaki does not disclose that the water tank is connected to the cathode exhaust emitted from the fuel cell or that the cathode exhaust is fed into the water supply line upstream to the water supply valve. (See e.g., Fig. 4.) Thus, we agree with Appellants that Aramaki does not disclose a water vapor transfer unit as that structure is understood in the art as described in the instant Specification. (App. Br. 13.) Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding that Aramaki discloses a water vapor transfer unit. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections. REVERSED cu