Ex Parte Owens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2012

11643392 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 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.
11/643,392 12/21/2006 John N. Owens GP-306661-FCAR-CHE 4430
65798 7590 11/08/2012
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
DAVIS, PATRICIA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2012 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 JOHN N. OWENS and HAMID G. KIA
____________________

Appeal 2011-005899
Application 11/643,392
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 9-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Fujitaka1 in view of Rock2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Fujitaka, JP 2002-358973A, pub. Dec. 13, 2002. The Examiner relies upon
a computerized translation made of record on November 16, 2009 as
evidence of the teachings of this reference. The reliance on this translation
has not been objected to by Appellants. Therefore, we also rely upon this
translation.
2 Rock et al., US 2004/0209150 A1, pub. Oct. 21, 2004.
Appeal 2011-005899
Application 11/643,392

2

We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims are directed to process for molding composite bipolar
plates with reinforced outer edges. Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A unipolar plate for a fuel cell stack comprising:
a composite body portion that defines an active region, a
header region and a seal area therebetween, wherein the header
region includes a plurality of openings defining inlet and outlet
manifolds; and
at least one prepeg insert cured to the composite body
portion in the header region so as to strengthen the header
region.

OPINION
The main question on appeal is whether the frame b of Fujitaka (see
below p. 5) is located “in the header region” as required by claims 9 and 17
(Compare Br. 11-13 with Ans. 10-12). The Examiner determines that the
claim language is broad enough to encompass the frame structure of Fujitaka
(Ans. 11). Appellants contend that the frame of Fujitaka borders the header
region; it is not “in” the header region (Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2).
We select claim 9 as representative for resolving the issue on appeal.
We first review the Specification to determine the meaning of the claim
language. “[A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
App
App

appl
1997
a hea
(Spe
plate
cut t
mold
repro
eal 2011-0
lication 11
icant's spe
).
Appellan
Top v

Figure 1
der region
c. ¶ [0013
including
The Spe
o the shap
ing comp
duced bel
05899
/643,392
cification.”
ts’ Figure
iew of a u
depicts a
14 that in
]). Appell
the manif
cification
e of the he
ound used
ow, illustr
In re Mo
1 is repro
nipolar pla
unipolar p
cludes ma
ants use “h
olds (Spec
discloses a
ader regio
to mold th
ates the m
3
rris, 127 F
duced belo
te for a fu
late 10 inc
nifolds 16
eader regi
. ¶¶ [0013
n embodim
n 14 and b
e plate 10
olding pro
.3d 1048,
w:
el cell stac
luding an
, 18, 20, 2
on” to ref
-16]).
ent in wh
onded or c
(Spec. ¶ [
cess.
1054 (Fed
k (Spec. ¶
active regi
2, 24, 26,
er to the ar
ich a prep
ured to th
0017]). Fi
. Cir.
[0008])
on 12, and
28, etc.
ea of the
eg is die
e bulk
gure 2,

App
App

mold
bulk
the h
plura
regio
inser
indic
prep
regio
prep
Corp
eal 2011-0
lication 11

Brok

In the em
cavity ba
molding c
Claim 9
eader regi
lity of ope
n.”
While th
ts die cut
ate that th
eg cover th
n.” Unde
eg to be in
., 415 F.3
05899
/643,392
en-away s
show
bodiment
se 52 adja
ompound
does not r
on. Claim
nings, and
e Specific
in the shap
e inventio
e entire h
r the circu
any partic
d 1303, 13
ide view o
n in Figu
of Figure
cent moldi
60 (Spec.
equire that
9 merely
at least o
ation desc
e of the he
n is so lim
eader regio
mstances,
ular locati
23 (Fed. C
4
f a mold f
re 1 (Spec
2, a prepe
ng rib 58 a
¶ [0018]).
the prepe
requires th
ne prepeg
ribes speci
ader regio
ited. Nor
n, it mere
we do not
on in head
ir. 2005)(
or making
. ¶ [0009])
g insert 56
nd the mo
g be die cu
at the hea
insert be “
fic embod
n, the Spe
does claim
ly requires
limit claim
er region.
en banc)(“
the unipol

is positio
ld is filled
t into the
der region
in the hea
iments usi
cification
9 require
it be “in t
9 to requ
See Phill
[A]lthoug
ar plate
ned on
with a
shape of
include a
der
ng prepeg
does not
that the
he header
iring a
ips v. AWH
h the

Appeal 2011-005899
Application 11/643,392

5
specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
embodiments.”). The prepeg insert may cover only a portion of the header
region, and may be located anywhere in the header region.
So the question remains, is the frame bof Fujitaka located somewhere
“in the header region” as required by claim 9?
Fujitaka describes a fuel cell separator reinforced on its outside
surfaces with reinforcing members, such as a frame material (Fujitaka, ¶
[0007]).
Fujitaka’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:

The left figure shows a top view of the outline of a separator member. The
right figure shows an expanded sectional view of a frame material b
(Fujitaka, ¶ [0018])

Fujitaka’s plate (separator body a) has a header region containing
openings (Fig. 1). It also has a frame b about the periphery of the separator
body (Fig. 1). The frame b can have a number of different shapes, one of
which is shown on the right in Figure 1 above. As can be seen on the right
Appeal 2011-005899
Application 11/643,392

6
of Figure 1, this embodiment of the frame b not only frames the outer edge
of the plate, it extends over the face of the header region (Fig. 1; ¶ [0022]).
On this basis, we determine he frame b is “in the header region” as
required by claim 9. Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-19.
Appellants separately argue claims 20 and 21. These claims require
that the prepeg insert be “die cut to a shape of the header region.”
The Examiner finds that the frame member b of Fujitaka has the same
shape as the header region in Fujitaka (Ans. 12). We disagree. Fujitaka
specifically teaches arranging the frame on the outer edge of the header
region away from the gas passageways (Fujitaka, ¶ [0018]). The header
region includes the gas passageways. The frame is not in the shape of the
header region as required by claims 20 and 21.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejection of claims 9-19, but do not sustain the
rejection of claims 20 and 21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cam