Ex Parte Hortop et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

12190261 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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. 12/190,261 08/12/2008 Matthew K. Hortop P000794-FCA-CHE 8481 65798 7590 11/01/2012 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 200 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER MOHADDES, LADAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2012 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 MATTHEW K. HORTOP, BERND PETER ELGAS, ROBERT S. FOLEY, and DAVID JOHN KEYES ____________ Appeal 2011-009708 Application 12/190,261 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) of claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 18 as anticipated by Marsh (US 2002/0045082 A1, pub. Apr. 18, 2002) and under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Marsh in various combinations with Raiser (US 6,764,782 B2, issued Appeal 2011-009708 Application 12/190,261 2 Jul. 20, 2004) and Dewey (US 2004/0157091, pub. Aug. 12, 2004).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We AFFIRM. Appellants claim an enclosure for holding electrical devices and components in a fuel cell system, as well as a fuel cell system comprising an enclosure, comprising a fuel cell stack and a plurality of electrical components associated with the fuel cell stack (independent claims 1 and 9), wherein the plurality of electrical components includes a high voltage interlock loop (see, e.g., dependent claim 6) and/or an electrical resistance measurement circuit for providing high voltage isolation level detection (see, e.g., dependent claim 7 and remaining independent claim 17). Representative claims 1, 6, and 7 read as follows: 1. An enclosure for holding electrical devices and components in a fuel cell system, said enclosure comprising: at least one fuel cell stack; and a plurality of electrical components associated with the at least one fuel cell stack, said plurality of electrical components including power distribution components and high voltage cell monitoring components. 1 The Examiner has erred in grouping the claims under the rejection. For example, the Examiner erroneously omitted dependent claim 19 from the rejections although it is clear that this claim is grouped with the rejection of parent independent claim 17. The Examiner's claim grouping error is harmless since Appellants have not been prejudiced thereby. For example, the claim 19 grouping error does not prejudice Appellants because they understand this claim is under rejection (App. Br. 10) and because they do not present separate arguments specifically directed to this claim (id. at 11- 15). Appeal 2011-009708 Application 12/190,261 3 6. The enclosure according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of electrical components includes a high voltage interlock loop. 7. The enclosure according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of electrical components includes at least one electrical resistance measurement circuit for providing high voltage isolation level detection. Concerning the Â§ 102 rejection, the Examiner finds that Marsh discloses a fuel cell system on a semiconductor wafer which includes fuel cell channels, an enclosure formed by a lid overtop the channels, and traditional electrical circuitry for monitoring and controlling functions of the individual fuel cells, thereby anticipating independent claims 1 and 9 (Ans. 3, para. bridging 5-6). Appellants argue that Marsh does not teach their claimed enclosure (App. Br. 12-14). According to Appellants, the fuel cells of Marsh are fabricated into the wafer such that "the wafer and fuel cells are part of the same structure, and thus, one cannot enclose the other" (Reply Br. 2). Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. As correctly found by the Examiner, Marsh discloses a lid 400 overtop channels 60A, 60B, 60C (Marsh Fig. 4) whereby an enclosure is formed beneath the lid. Contrary to Appellants' belief, the Examiner's finding is not erroneous simply because the wafer and fuel cells of Marsh are part of the same structure. This is because Appellants point to nothing and we find nothing in representative claim 1 which prohibits the recited enclosure from being formed by part of the subsequently recited structure such as the lid of the subsequently recited fuel cell stack. Appeal 2011-009708 Application 12/190,261 4 For this reason and because Appellants do not separately argue the claims under rejection (App. Br. 12-14), we sustain the Â§ 102 rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 18 as anticipated by Marsh. Concerning the Â§ 103 rejections, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the resistance measuring circuit of Raiser and the high voltage interlock loop of Dewey in the fuel cell electrical components of Marsh so as to obtain benefit of the functions performed by the circuit and loop of Raiser and Dewey (Ans. 4-5). Appellants argue that Marsh cannot be combined with Raiser or Dewey to achieve their claimed invention because the claimed electrical components in question are under high voltage which would render the semiconductor wafer of Marsh inoperable (App. Br. 14-15). We agree with the Examiner that the term "high voltage" is relative and accordingly encompasses voltage levels which are high relative to the fuel cell system of Marsh (Ans. 6). In rebuttal, Appellants assert that "one having ordinary skill in the art would not consider a semiconductor wafer capable of high voltage levels in accordance with Appellants' specification and claims" (Reply Br. para. bridging 2-3). However, Appellants do not identify any disclosure in their Specification which defines the term "high voltage" as involving voltage levels greater than those of Marsh's fuel cell system. For these reasons, we find no convincing merit in Appellants' above argument. Appellants also argue that the Examiner's proposed combination of Marsh and Dewey is improper because the Examiner has failed to identify a reason or rationale for this combination (App. Br. 15). Appeal 2011-009708 Application 12/190,261 5 This argument is not convincing because it is factually erroneous. The reason for incorporating the high voltage interlock loop of Dewey in the fuel cell electrical components of Marsh has been expressly stated by the Examiner to be "for removing the current load during a fault condition" (Ans. 5). Moreover, this reason is supported by the Examiner's citation (id. at 3) to paragraph [0007] of Marsh which discloses that "[t]raditional electrical circuitry can be integrated on the wafer along with the chips to provide process monitoring and control functions for the individual cells." In light of the foregoing and because Appellants once again do not separately argue the claims under rejection (i.e., other than those represented by claims 6 and 7) (App. Br. 14-15), we also sustain the Â§ 103 rejections of claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Marsh in various combinations with Raiser and Dewey. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED kmm/sld