Ex Parte Gangwar

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 15, 2016

12145961 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/145,961 06/25/2008 28395 7590 04/19/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hans Buus Gangwar 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. 81171490 4220 EXAMINER HOANG, TUBA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS BUUS GANGW AR Appeal2013-010193 Application 12/145 ,961 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hans Buus Gangwar ("Appellant") seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-17. Appeal Br. 2--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2013-010193 Application 12/145,961 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's invention relates to "automotive rotatable power transfer systems." Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent and claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A rotating power transfer system for an automotive fuel cell vehicle including a fuel cell stack, the system comprising: one of an impeller and turbine in fluid communication with the fuel cell stack; an electric machine including a stator coil; a shaft operatively associated with the one of impeller and turbine; and a heating element disposed within the shaft and configured to be selectively electrically coupled with the stator coil. Appeal Br. V., Claims App. THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards (US 6,720,102 B2, issued Apr. 13, 2004) and Albaric (US 4,200,784, issued Apr. 29, 1980). Final Act. 2 (dated Sept. 14, 2012). II. Claims 4--9 and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards, Albaric, and Winslow (US 2,639, 134, issued May 19, 1953). Final Act. 3. ANALYSIS Rejection I: Claims 1-3 and 10 as Unpatentable In rejecting claims 1-3 and 10, the Examiner found that Edwards teaches a rotating system for an automotive fuel cell vehicle including fuel cell stack 32, with the system comprising, inter alia, an impeller and turbine 2 Appeal2013-010193 Application 12/145,961 (motor means 5 0) in fluid communication with the fuel cell stack. Final Act. 2 (citing Edwards, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner found, however, that Edwards failed to teach the claimed heating element. Id. Figure 1 of Edwards is reproduced below: AA r2 SffF!G. T\ 10 r SEE F/6 6 "\. ' ~~~~~~~~,,,__~~~- ~-Â·Â·-;- ' AIR ~L FIGol Figure 1 depicts fuel cell blade assemblies 3 2 that are mounted on and secured to shaft 26 so as to rotate therewith. Edwards, col. 3, 11. 34--36. Fuel cells 32 provide the electrical power for motor means 50. Id. at col. 5, 11. 1--4. The rotation of fuel cells 32 "slings water away" with centrifugal force to keep the surface of the fuel cells' cathodes free of water and to ensure that air and oxygen are in contact with the cathode. See id. at col. 1, 11. 50-57. The Examiner relied on Albaric for teaching "a heating element" and concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to include Albaric's heating element "in order to provide for increased temperature control" (Final Act. 2-3), "thereby mitigat[ing] the freezing effects of water" (Ans. 6), as Edwards' "configuration is vulnerable to freezing" (id.). In the 3 Appeal2013-010193 Application 12/145,961 Answer, the Examiner further explained that "integrating Albaric' s electric heating element into the rotating fuel cell as taught by Edwards [] would result in a configuration in which the heating element relies on power generated by the rotating fuel cell." Ans. 5 (emphasis added) (citing Edwards col. 4, 1. 60-col. 5, 1. 5). In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that the Examiner's proposed combination is "not practical," as "Edwards' rotating fuel cell would be unable to power the heating element when frozen-rendering the heating element effectively useless." Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 5---6). Appellant's argument is persuasive. The Examiner's rejection relies on Edwards' rotatable fuel cell 32 to generate electricity for powering the heating element when Edwards' configuration is frozen (Ans. 5-6), but the Examiner has failed to explain adequately how Edwards' rotatable fuel cell 32 can generate electricity when it is frozen and presumably unable to rotate or covered with ice. For us to sustain the Examiner's rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible speculation that Edwards' rotatable fuel cell 32 would generate electricity when the system is frozen and hence not rotatable, or that the Examiner had some other rationale in mind when making the rejection. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis."). For the foregoing reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 10 as unpatentable over Edwards and Albaric. 4 Appeal2013-010193 Application 12/145,961 Rejection II: Claims 4-9 and 11-17 as Unpatentable The rejection of claims 4--9 and 11-17 is based on the same unsupportable combination of Edwards and Albaric relied on and discussed supra with respect to Rejection I, namely, that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to include Albaric' s heating element to mitigate freezing. See Final Act. 3 (relying on the teachings from Rejection I in supporting Rejection II). Therefore, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4--9 and 11-17 as unpatentable over Edwards, Albaric, and Winslow. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards and Albaric is reversed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 4--9 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards, Albaric, and Winslow is reversed. REVERSED 5