Ex Parte Zou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2017

13617758 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/617,758 09/14/2012 Lijun Zou P017413-RDFC-CHE 2424
83938 7590 05/24/2017
Brooks Kushman P.C.
1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
ZHANG, HAIXIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2017 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
Ex parte LIJUN ZOU, TIMOTHY J. FULLER, and
MICHAEL R. SCHOENEWEISS
Appeal 2016-002705
Application 13/617,758
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JULIA HEANEY, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10 of Application 13/617,758 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. 4—12. We have
1 This Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Sept. 14, 2012;
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Nov. 5, 2014; Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) dated June 4, 2015; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
Oct. 23, 2015; and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated Dec. 28,
2015.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology
Operations LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002705
Application 13/617,758
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a supported membrane of a
fuel cell. App. Br. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A supported membrane of a fuel cell, the
supported membrane comprising:
a first expanded polytetrafluoroethylene support having
pores with a diameter from 0.1 to 1 microns and a thickness
from 4 to 12 microns; and
a second expanded polytetrafluoroethylene support
having pores with a diameter from 0.1 to 1 microns and a
thickness from 4 to 12 microns, wherein the first expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene support and the second expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene support each independently have a
Gurley Number from about 2 to 10; and
an ion conducting polymer imbibing into the first
expanded polytetrafluoroethylene support and the second
expanded polytetrafluoroethylene support such that the
membrane has a thickness from 10 to 25 microns.
Claims App’x.
2
Appeal 2016-002705
Application 13/617,758
THE REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hommura,3 Kuhata,4 and Berta.5
Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hommura, Kuhata, Berta, and Hori.6
Id. at 8.
3. Claims 4—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Hommura, Kuhata, Berta, and Fuller.7 Id. at 9.
DISCUSSION
Appellants present arguments for independent claims 1 and 10
together, focusing on common limitations. App. Br. 3—7. Appellants do not
present separate argument for patentability of the dependent claims. Id. at 8.
Accordingly, the dependent claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Appellants’ principal argument regarding claim 1 is that Hommura
does not teach expanded polytetrafluoroethylene supports imbibed with an
ion conducting polymer. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2.8 Specifically, Appellants
3 US 2009/0291345 A1 (Nov. 26, 2009).
4 JP 09194609 A (July 29, 1997).
5 US 2007/0072036 A1 (Mar. 29, 2007).
6 JP 2004152744 A (May 27, 2004).
7 US 2011/0159405 A1 (June 30, 2011).
8 Appellants’ arguments are all directed to Hommura. We therefore need not
address the additional references.
3
Appeal 2016-002705
Application 13/617,758
argue that the Examiner incorrectly relied on Hommura’s Figure 7 as
teaching first and second polytetrafluoroethylene supports, because
Hommura does not disclose that layers Ma 2-32 and Me 2-36 of polymer
electrolyte membrane in Figure 7 include polytetrafluoroethylene supports.
App. Br. 6—7. Appellants further argue that if layers Ma 2-32 and Me 2-36
were to include polytetrafluoroethylene supports, it “would counteract the
desired ion exchange properties of these layers” because
polytetrafluoroethylene is not an ion conductor. Id. at 7.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Hommura teaches with regard to Figure 6 that polymer electrolyte
membrane 2—30 may contain a polytetrafluoroethylene reinforcing material.
Hommura 276—277. Hommura further teaches that polymer electrolyte
membrane 2—30 may be at least double-layered, as shown in Figure 7’s
polymer electrolyte membrane 2—30 having layers Ma 2-32, Mb 2-34, and
Me 2-36. M 282—283. Because those layers are part of polymer
electrolyte membrane 2—30, it is reasonable to interpret Hommura as
teaching that they also may contain polytetrafluoroethylene reinforcing
material. Moreover, and contrary to Appellants’ argument, Hommura does
not teach away from the layers of its membrane 2—30 containing both
polytetrafluoroethylene reinforcing material and proton-conductive polymer.
See App. Br. 7. In other words, Hommura’s teaching regarding the ion
exchange properties of layers Ma 2-32 and Me 2-36 does not suggest that
those layers do not contain polytetrafluoroethylene reinforcing material.
Hommura describes fluoropolymers as examples of proton-conductive
polymers used in its polymer electrolyte membrane (Hommura 96—115),
which are the same types of polymers described in the Specification as ion
conducting polymers imbibed into the polytetrafluoroethylene reinforcing
4
Appeal 2016-002705
Application 13/617,758
layers of the membrane electrode. E.g., Spec. ]Hf 24—30. Accordingly,
Appellants’ argument that Hommura’s layers Ma 2-32 and Me 2-36 cannot
include both polytetrafluoroethylene and a proton-conductive polymer is not
persuasive.
Therefore, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s findings
regarding Hommura.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—10 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5