Ex Parte Pflaesterer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

11801096 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
11/801,096 05/08/2007 Jens Pflaesterer 8470G-000046/DVA 1838
7590 11/30/2012
Harness Dickey and Pierce PLC
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
SMITH, JEREMIAH R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2012 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 JENS PFLAESTERER
____________

Appeal 2011-009347
Application 11/801,096
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, MARK NAGUMO, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 15-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This appeal involves claims to a method for manufacturing a sealing
arrangement for a fuel cell or a stack of fuel cells, wherein the edges of the
fuel cell(s) are sealed by injection molding with a polymeric material with a
Appeal 2011-009347
Application 11/801,096

2
pair of clamp ends being integrally formed on exposed marginal outer
surfaces of the fuel cell. Spec. ¶ [0012].
Appellant’s arguments are jointly directed to independent claims 15
and 17. Accordingly, our analysis, while focusing on claim 15, applies with
equal force to claim 17. Further, as the dependent claims have not been
argued separately, all claims stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 15 is representative and reads as follows:
Claim 15. A method for manufacturing a sealing arrangement
for a fuel cell or for a stack of fuel cells, comprising the steps of:
a) coating or partially impregnating or soaking a marginal
region of two porous, gas-permeable plates with a first polymeric
sealing material,
b) forming a membrane electrode assembly by joining two
porous plates with an ion-exchange membrane placed therebetween,
c) forming at least one unit by joining a first cell separator plate
and a second cell separator plate with the membrane electrode
assembly formed in step b) being placed therebetween, edges of said
membrane electrode assembly being disposed inboard relative to
edges of said first and second separator plates, and each cell separator
plate having a first surface that faces the membrane electrode
assembly and a second surface opposite said first surface,
d) inserting the unit or a stack formed of a plurality of the units
into a cavity of an injection mold,
e) pressing the unit or the units in the cavity with a contact
pressure until the first polymeric sealing material is capable of
withstanding an injection pressure with a second polymeric sealing
material,
f) forming a composite or composites by injecting a melt of the
second polymeric sealing material into the cavity of the injection
mold, injection of said melt filling a first gap formed by said edges of
said membrane electrode assembly being disposed inboard relative to
Appeal 2011-009347
Application 11/801,096

3
said edges of said separator plates, filling a second gap formed by
edges of the ion-exchange membrane being disposed inboard relative
to edges of said porous plates, and forming a first clamp end that
directly contacts said second surface of said first cell separator plate
and forming a second clamp end that directly contacts said second
surface of said second cell separator plate, said melt that fills said first
and second gaps and said first and second clamp ends encasing said
membrane electrode assembly,
g) solidifying the melt, and
h) removing the composite or the composites of fuel cells
formed in f) from the mold.

App. Br., Claims App’x, emphasis added.

The claims stand rejected as follows:
• Claims 15-18, 22-24, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barton1 in view of Wozniczka2 and further in view of
Bonk3;
• Claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barton
in view of Wozniczka and Bonk as applied to claim 17, and further in view
of Gyoten4 and Zucker5; and
• Claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Barton
in view of Wozniczka as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Gyoten
and Zucker.

1 US 6,057,054, issued May 2, 2000.
2 US 6,596,427 B1, issued Jul. 22, 2003.
3 US 2001/0001052 A1, published May 10, 2001.
4 US 6,372,373 B1, issued Apr. 16, 2002.
5 US 2003/0219648, published Nov. 27, 2003.
Appeal 2011-009347
Application 11/801,096

4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Barton teaches a method for manufacturing a
sealing arrangement for a fuel cell comprising steps (a)-(c), (g) and (h),
involving the steps of assembling an ion-exchange membrane between a pair
of partially impregnated porous plates, with first and second cell separator
plates disposed on opposite sides of the porous plates, solidifying a melt of
sealant material applied in the gaps formed by the inboard edges of the
membrane and the porous plates, and removing the composite fuel cell from
the mold. Ans. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that Barton does not appear
to teach steps (d)-(f), injection molding the sealing arrangement by placing
the fuel cell assembly in an injection mold under pressure and forming a pair
of clamp ends on outer surfaces of the separator plates unitary with the melt
to hold the composite together. Id. at 5. However, the Examiner finds that
Wozniczka teaches a method of manufacturing a sealing arrangement for a
fuel cell by injection molding, wherein the seal maintains compression on
the stack. Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that Wozniczka teaches that
“the encapsulating seal may encase one or both end plates, in whole or in
part”. Id. at 6, quoting Wozniczka, col. 7, ll. 15-17. The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to have modified Barton’s
method by injection molding the seal as taught by Wozniczka to produce a
sealed fuel cell having reduced possibility of leakage. Ans. 6.
Appellant contends that Wozniczka’s teaching is insufficient evidence
to render obvious the features of the recited “clamp ends”. App. Br. 9. In
Appeal 2011-009347
Application 11/801,096

5
this regard, Appellant argues that while Wozniczka teaches that the sealing
material may extend into grooves located on an outside edge of the end
plates, there is no factual basis to determine where the outside edge of the
end plate is located. Id. at 10. Appellant similarly argues that while
Wozniczka teaches that “‘the encapsulating seal may encase one of both end
plates in whole or in part’ . . . it cannot be determined from the disclosure of
Wozniczka what is meant by the term ‘encase.’” Reply Br. 4.
Thus, the dispositive question raised by the Examiner and Appellant
is: Has the Examiner demonstrated that Wozniczka’s teaching that the
encapsulating seal may be either in an outside edge of the end plates and
may encase one or both end plates in whole or in part is sufficiently clear as
to cover the claimed clamp ends? On this record, we answer this question in
the affirmative.
As found by the Examiner, Wozniczka teaches that the sealing end
portion may be disposed either on an inner surface of the end plate as shown
in Figure 3, or alternatively may be located on an outside edge of the end
plate (not shown). Ans. 19. The Examiner then found that “[a] skilled
artisan would understand that this alternative embodiment, compared to
Figure 3, would include the encapsulating seal being disposed on the outside
[lower] edge of the end plate, item 18, where there is room for the ‘more
than one end plate groove’.” Id. In addition, the Examiner found that
Wozniczka teaches that the seal may encase one or both end plates in whole
or in part. Id. Although Appellant argues that it is not clear where the
Appeal 2011-009347
Application 11/801,096

6
alternative end plate groove is or what the term “encase” means, we find that
there is only one other alternative location for the groove in the edge face of
the end plate facing to the right in Figure 3. However, Appellant’s argument
fails to establish that the Examiner’s finding is unreasonable. That there
may be more than one possible location for the groove fails to persuade that
one skilled in the art would not have located the groove as the Examiner
found. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“When
there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp.”) Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have identified the outside lower surface of the end plates as
the most reasonable alternative location of the groove, allowing at least a
partial encasement6 of the end plates. We note that the Examiner’s finding
is further supported by the locations of the grooves in each of Wozniczka’s
separator plates 11, 12 in the opposing surfaces such that the stack of fuel
cells is held or clamped together. Wozniczka, Figure 2.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not articulated any
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. App. Br. 11. However, this argument is premised on
Appellant’s previous argument above that the Examiner’s finding as to the

6 The term “encase” is defined to mean “to enclose in”. Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., Springfield, MA, 1998.
Appeal 2011-009347
Application 11/801,096

7
location of the end plate groove is erroneous. As set forth above, Appellant
has failed to demonstrate error in that Examiner’s finding. Accordingly,
Appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning based on a rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed with regard to the Section
103 rejections of claims 15-30.
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

sld