Ex Parte Hamada

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 15, 2019

14130508 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/130,508 01/02/2014 23838 7590 03/19/2019 HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 2200 Pennsylvania A venue NW WASHINGTON, DC 20037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shigetaka Hamada 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. 577792/0261314 9888 EXAMINER CONLEY,OIK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1725 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2019 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): uspto@kenyon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHIGETAKA HAMADA Appeal2018-003448 Application 14/130,508 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 6. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed January 2, 2014, the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated April 27, 2017, Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed August 25, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated December 22, 2017, and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed February 13, 2018. 2 Appellant identifies Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2018-003448 Application 14/130,508 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a fuel cell and, in particular, a separator structure for use within a fuel cell stack (Spec. ,r,r 1, 2). The separator includes a metal plate having convex and concave shapes in an inverted manner on the front and back surfaces thereof so as to form gas passages to the concave shapes on the front surface facing the membrane electrode assembly ("MEA") and coolant passages to the convex shapes (respective concave shapes on the back surface facing away from the MEA) (id. ,r 7). In order to improve a wet state of the MEA, Appellant discloses providing the gas passages with a cross-sectional area that becomes smaller from the gas upstream to the gas downstream sides, and the coolant passages with a cross- sectional area that becomes larger from the coolant upstream to the coolant downstream sides (id. ,r 9). Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A fuel cell comprising: a membrane electrode assembly; and a separator located on one side of the membrane electrode assembly, the separator having concave and convex shapes formed on a front side and a back side of a single plate of the separator, the separator having a gas flow passage formed as a concave portion from said concave shapes on the membrane electrode assembly side and a coolant flow passage formed as a concave portion from said convex shapes on the side opposite to the membrane electrode assembly, wherein a width of each of the concave portions constituting the gas flow passage of the separator is set such that it becomes relatively smaller on a gas downstream side than on a gas upstream side, and a width of each of the concave portions constituting the coolant flow passage of the separator is set such that it 2 Appeal2018-003448 Application 14/130,508 becomes relatively larger on a coolant downstream side than on a coolant upstream side so that the cross- sectional area of the gas flow passage decreases on the gas upstream side and the cross-sectional of the coolant flow passage increases on the coolant upstream side. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a): 1. Claims 1-3 as unpatentable over Takahashi 3 in view of Lee, 4 and further in view of Suenaga5 (Final Act. 2-5); 2. Claim 5 as unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Lee and Suenaga, and further in view of Meyer6 (Final Act. 5); and 3. Claim 6 as unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Lee and Suenaga, and further in view of Masaru 7 (Final Act. 5---6). ANALYSIS The dispositive issue before us on appeal is whether Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to form a fuel cell separator, as recited in claim 1, as a single plate having a gas flow passage whose cross-sectional area is smaller on the gas downstream side than on the gas upstream side and a coolant flow passage whose cross-sectional area is larger on the coolant downstream side 3 Takahashi et al., US 6,248,466 Bl, issued June 19, 2001 ("Takahashi"). 4 Lee et al., US 6,866,955 B2, issued March 15, 2005 ("Lee"). 5 Suenaga et al., US 2002/0102453 Al, published August 1, 2002 ("Suenaga"). 6 Meyer et al., US 5,503,944, issued April 2, 1996 ("Meyer"). 7 Kadokawa et al., JP 2004-039540 A, published February 5, 2004 ("Masaru"). The Examiner relies on the English language machine- translation of this reference. 3 Appeal2018-003448 Application 14/130,508 than on the coolant upstream side based on the combined teachings of Takahashi, Lee, and Suenaga. We answer this question in the affirmative and, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections. The Examiner finds that Takahashi discloses a fuel cell separator having concave and convex shapes formed on front and back sides thereof, with a gas flow passage formed as the concave portions of the front side, wherein the width of the concave portions becomes smaller from the gas upstream side to the gas downstream side (Final Act. 3). The Examiner further finds that Lee discloses a fuel cell separator having a coolant flow passage with concave portions, the width of which becomes larger from the coolant upstream side to the coolant downstream side (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate Lee's coolant flow channel design into Takahashi' s coolant channels in order to prevent damaging hotspots in the fuel cell (id. at 3--4). The Examiner acknowledges that Takahashi fails to disclose a single plate separator having concave and convex shapes formed on the front and back side thereof (id. at 4). However, the Examiner finds Suenaga discloses a single plate separator having convex and concave portions in order to withstand compression (id.). The Examiner concludes, therefore, that it would have been obvious to incorporate a single plate separator having convex and concave portions in Takahashi, as modified in view of Lee, in order to provide a tolerant separator and prevent distortion (id.). Appellant argues that, although Suenaga discloses a conventional single plate structurally similar to that claimed except for the changing width and cross-sectional areas of the gas and coolant passages, neither Takahashi nor Lee teaches any relationship between gas and coolant passages (Appeal 4 Appeal2018-003448 Application 14/130,508 Br. 12). Appellant further argues that Takahashi and Lee, in fact, teach separate structures for the gas and coolant passages without any structural relationship therebetween (Reply Br. 7). Appellant contends that Takahashi provides gas flow passages on the opposite sides of the separator, whereas coolant is supplied to a separate coolant manifold (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant contends that Lee provides bipolar and end plate assemblies having gas flow fields with coolant channels formed in a separate structure with no relationship between the gas and coolant channels (id. at 8-10). In other words, although Takahashi discloses a separator plate having a gas flow passage with a decreasing width and cross-sectional area, and Lee discloses a separator plate having a coolant flow passage with an increasing width and cross-sectional area, there is no suggestion in the art that these gas and coolant flow passages be provided in the same single plate separator's complementary concave and convex shapes on the front and back sides. We agree. The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984);InreRinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). Meeting that burden requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Takahashi and Lee individually suggest gas and coolant passages with respective decreasing and increasing cross-sectional areas, but neither suggest any relationship therebetween. Takahashi and Lee, at best, suggest separate gas flow field and coolant flow field plates having their respective changing cross-sectional dimensions. Although Suenaga teaches a complementary relationship between gas and 5 Appeal2018-003448 Application 14/130,508 coolant flow passages, there is no suggestion that the cross-sectional area of one could decrease while concomitantly increasing the cross-sectional area of the other. Absent Appellant's disclosure, we find no support for applying Takahashi's and Lee's respective teachings to Suenaga's separator to arrive at the claimed invention. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has met the minimum threshold of establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-3. We note that the Examiner does not rely on Meyer or Masaru to remedy the deficiency discussed above in the combination of Takahashi, Lee, and Suenaga. Accordingly, we likewise will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 6. DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Takahashi, Lee, and Suenaga, alone or further in view of Meyer and Masaru, is reversed. REVERSED 6