Ex Parte MATHIE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 8, 2019

14619717 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/619,717 02/11/2015 28395 7590 03/12/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Craig Michael MATHIE 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. 83488750 5002 EXAMINER STUCKEY, PHILIP A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/12/2019 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte CRAIG MICHAEL MATHIE, MICHAEL ALLEN DEBOLT, BRIAN GILLESPEY, WILLIAM F. SANDERSON, and ZIJIE LU Appeal2018-005704 Application 14/619,717 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-14 and 21-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 11, 2015; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated August 25, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed December 8, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated March 15, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 15, 2018. 2 Appellant is Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which the Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-005704 Application 14/619,717 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a fuel cell for an automotive vehicle. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 7-the sole independent claim on appeal-reads: 7. A fuel cell assembly comprising: a membrane electrode assembly sandwiched between first and second plates that each include opposing.first and second regions that each define a first coolant header and a second coolant header, and in response to a cold-start mode, the first plate being configured to circulate coolant from the first region to the second region and the second plate being configured to circulate coolant from the second region to the first region. App. Br. (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in dispute). REJECTIONS I. Claims 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a) as anticipated by Yamazaki. 3 II. Claims 21-284 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a) as anticipated by Song. 5 III. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Yamazaki and Lee. 6 3 US 2014/0356748 Al, published December 4, 2014. 4 Claims 7-10, 29, and 30 also were rejected as anticipated by Song. Final Act. 7. The Examiner withdrew the rejection as applied to claims 7-10. See Interview Summary dated September 7, 2017. Claims 29 and 30 are canceled. 5 US 2012/0028156 Al, published February 2, 2012. 6 US 2007/0287045 Al, published December 13, 2007. 2 Appeal2018-005704 Application 14/619,717 OPINION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Yamazaki describes a fuel cell assembly that meets all the elements recited in claim 7. Final Act. 13 ( citing Yamazaki, Fig. 3). Particularly, the Examiner finds that the singular coolant inlet and singular coolant outlet depicted in Yamazaki' s Figure 3 satisfy the first and second coolant headers recited in claim 7. Id. The Examiner premises that finding on an interpretation that claim 7 requires only two coolant headers. Ans. 4 ("The claim recites only a first coolant header and a second coolant header; the claim does not recite a third coolant header and a fourth coolant header."). Appellant argues that the Examiner's claim interpretation is incorrect, and that claim 7 requires that each plate includes four coolant headers, which Yamazaki does not describe. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. We agree. Claim 7 recites, inter alia, "first and second plates that each include opposing first and second regions that each define a first coolant header and a second coolant header" ( emphasis added). Thus, claim 7 expressly requires that each region of a recited plate defines two coolant headers, and each recited plate includes two regions. Accordingly, Appellant correctly contends that each plate recited in claim 7 requires four coolant headers. The Examiner's reading, on the other hand, improperly disregards the word "each" in the phrase, "first and second regions that each define a first coolant header and a second coolant header." For the foregoing reason, we are persuaded that the Examiner's finding of anticipation by Yamazaki is premised on an incorrect interpretation of the claims. Accordingly, Rejection I is not sustained. 3 Appeal2018-005704 Application 14/619,717 Rejection II The Examiner's finding of anticipation by Song is premised on the same incorrect interpretation of claim 7 identified above. 7 See Ans. 6 ("The Office's position is that only two coolant headers are required by the claim as discussed above."). The Examiner alternatively finds that Song describes four coolant headers. Id. ( citing Song, Fig. 1 ( elements 45, 46, 50, 52) ). However, the four elements identified by the Examiner as constituting four coolant headers are defined by different plates. Song, Fig. 1 (indicating ports 45 and 46 on plate 42, and ports 50 and 52 on plate 44). The Examiner does not present any finding of a description in Song corresponding to a singular plate that defines four coolant headers. For the foregoing reason, we are persuaded that the Examiner's finding of anticipation by Song also is premised on an incorrect interpretation of the claims. Rejection II is not sustained. Rejection III Claim 14 depends from claim 7. The Examiner does not rely upon Lee in a manner that corrects the improper claim interpretation applied in rejecting claim 7. Accordingly, Rejection III is not sustained for the reasons given in connection with Rejection I. 7 Although the Examiner rejects only claims 21-28 as anticipated by Song, these claims depend from independent claim 7 and, therefore, include all of the features recited in the independent claim. 4 Appeal2018-005704 Application 14/619,717 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-14 and 21-28 is reversed. REVERSED 5