Ex Parte Sedlacek

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 2016

13258097 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/258,097 09/21/2011 136767 7590 05/06/2016 Seed IP Law Group/General Firm (Email) 701 FIFTH A VE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wesley E. Sedlacek JR. 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. PA-10451 (130609.503USPC) CONFIRMATION NO. 9122 EXAMINER WILLS, MONIQUE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2016 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): Patentinfo@SeedIP.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WESLEY E. SEDLACEK JR. 1 Appeal2014-006315 Application 13/258,097 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a fuel cell power plant. Spec. i-f 5; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 10 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-006315 Application 13/258,097 1. A fuel cell power plant, comprising: a plurality of cell stack assemblies each including a plurality of fuel cells and a manifold; and at least one fuse that includes an indicator that provides an output when the fuse interrupts an electrically conductive connection between the manifold of a first one of the cell stack assemblies and a second one of the cell stack assemblies, the electrically conductive connection including at least a selected portion of a voltage of the second one of the cell stack assemblies. ANALYSIS Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumgartner et al. (US 2002/0158511 Al, published Oct. 31, 2002) in view of Condit et al. (US 2003/0039873 Al, published Feb. 27, 2003). Relying on Figure 3 of Baumgartner (reproduced below), the Examiner finds that Baumgartner teaches each element of claim 1 except for manifolds in combination with the fuel cells. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Condit to show that "it is well known in the art to employ fuel cell stacks with manifolds to direct reactant streams ... and coolant loops to maintain operating temperatures of the fuel cell stacks." Id. The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious ... to employ the manifolds and coolant loops of Condit, in each fuel cell stack of Baumgartner in order to direct reactant streams and maintain operating temperatures of the fuel cell stacks." Id. In reaching the conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner explains that "[t]he claim language is extremely broad merely requiring two remotely electrically 2 Appeal2014-006315 Application 13/258,097 connected fuel cells with a fuse downstream of the electrical connections." Id. at 11. The Examiner provides the following interpretation of claim 1: [T]he claims do not specifically require the proximity of the fuel cells to each other or the location of the fuse. Therefore, so long as the fuel cells are remotely electrically connected, and the fuse is located within the electrical connection, the claim language is satisfied. Here, the two fuel cells [of Baumgartner Figure 3] are remotely electrically connected (claims do not specify a proximity), and the fuse is located (downstream) in the electrical connection (all of the elements within the braking system are electrically connected). The claims do not require that the fuse is in between the fuel cells, the fuse is only intended to disrupt electrically connection between the fuel cells. Therefore, a fuse downstream of the fuel cells within the electrical path of the electrical connection between the fuel cells, satisfies the instant claims. Here, Fl-F4 are downstream of the generators 8 & 14 (Fig. 3), and are powered by the electrical connection Uunction 30) between the fuel cells. See paragraph 14 & Fig. 3. In other words, the fuse is only required to be in the pathway of the electrical connection (fuses Fl-F4 are powered by junction 30 connection fuel cells 8 & 14; Fig. 3 and par. 14). Id. at 10-11. For reasons set forth by the Appellant, see App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 1- 3, we cannot agree with the Examiner's analysis. Claim 1 requires the fuse to be capable of "interrupt[ing] an electrically conductive connection between the manifold of a first one of the cell stack assemblies and a second one of the cell stack assemblies." That language is not a nonlimiting intended use for the fuse, see Ans. 8; it conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the fuse is located in the power plant where it is capable of 3 Appeal2014-006315 Application 13/258,097 performing the recited function, such as the locations of fuses 42, 44, 46, and 48 of the Appellant's Figure 1: + 54 58 22 24 28 35 32 ~. t t '' lJCSA CSA CSA CSA 52 56 fig-1 Figure 1 depicts an embodiment of claim 1, and it shows fuses 42, 44, 46, and 48 positioned between manifolds 32, 34, 36, and 38 and cell stack assemblies 22, 24, 26, and 28. Those fuses are capable of "interrupt[ing] an electrically conductive connection between the manifold of a first one of the cell stack assemblies and a second one of the cell stack assemblies." A fuse that is merely downstream the fuel cells, as relied upon by the Examiner, is not necessarily capable of satisfying the disputed limitation; the fuse must be arranged such that it is capable of interrupting a connection between the second cell stack assembly and the manifold of the first cell stack assembly. We are persuaded by the Appellant's argument that the fuses of Baumgartner are not capable of doing that. Figure 3 of Baumgartner is reproduced below: 4 Appeal2014-006315 Application 13/258,097 ,.-' 37 Fl1 I , ,. r-R;;;-;:~1 ~l Â·---...... -:::::... ~ I. >---~-~- FIG. 3 Figure 3 is a schematic of Baumgartner's brake-by-wire electrical system architecture showing, inter alia, generators 14 and 8 ', which can be fuel cells, see Baumgartner ii 19, and fuses Fl through F4, which are connected to junction 30 through which power is supplied by the generators to brake circuits and controllers 10, 12, 32, and 34, see id. ii 14. The Appellant persuasively argues that fuses Fl through F4 are not arranged in a way that would allow them to "interrupt[] an electrically conductive connection" between generators 14 and 8', which the Examiner identifies as junction 3 0, see Ans. 10. It appears that fuses Fl and F3 could interrupt only connections to brake circuits 32 and 34, respectively, and that fuses F2 and F4 could interrupt only connections to brake controllers 10 and 12, respectively. 5 Appeal2014-006315 Application 13/258,097 We must therefore reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner's rejection of the remaining claims on appeal does not remedy the foregoing error. Therefore, we must likewise reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-15. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. REVERSED 6