Hamilton Sundstrand Space Systems International, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2020

2019005064 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2020)

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.
14/566,738 12/11/2014 David G. Converse 78196US01;
67036-773PUS1
6016
26096 7590 08/21/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CULLEN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2020 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID G. CONVERSE and THOMAS J. LEZON
Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738
Technology Center 1700

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–4, 7, 10–13, 16, 17, and 19–24.3
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed December 11, 2014, as amended (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated
February 22, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed July 18, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); Revised Appendix of Claims filed March 15, 2019 (Claims App.);
Examiner’s Answer dated April 18, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed
June 18, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hamilton
Sundstrand Space Systems International, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a multi-voltage fuel cell. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fuel cell stack, comprising:
a plurality of proton exchange membrane cells;
a first end plate;
a second end plate;
an internal current collecting plate arranged in the fuel
cell stack between the first end plate and the second end plate
dividing the fuel cell stack into a first stack portion between the
first end plate and the internal current collecting plate and a
second stack portion between the internal current collecting
plate and the second end plate, wherein a first load is connected
to the first end plate and the second end plate, and a second load
is connected to the first end plate and the internal current
collecting plate;
an anode recycle loop configured to direct a flow of fuel
exiting the fuel cell stack to a fuel source for reuse in the fuel
cell stack, the anode recycle loop comprising a pump; and
the first and second loads are components of one of an
Unmanned Underwater Vehicle and an Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle.
Claims App. 2.
Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Name Reference Date
Dunn US 7,938,077 B1 May 10, 2011
Scartozzi

US 2003/0091884 A1 May 15, 2003
Jahnke

US 2004/0229102 A1 Nov. 18, 2004
Dewey

US 2005/0287411 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Mohajeri US 2008/0070072 A1 Mar. 20, 2008
Matsukawa (as
t l t d)
JP 10-228914 A Aug. 25, 1998

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–4, 10–13, 16, 17, 19–21, and 23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dewey in view of Jahnke and Dunn. Final
Act. 2.
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dewey in view of Jahnke, Dunn, and Matsukawa. Final Act. 8.
3. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dewey in view of Jahnke, Dunn, and Scartozzi. Final Act.
9.
4. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dewey in view of Jahnke and Mohajeri. Final Act. 9.

OPINION
We have considered the Appellant’s arguments as to each ground of
rejection, including the Appellant’s separate arguments in support of
patentability of claim 20. The Examiner has fully addressed these
Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738

4
arguments, and we agree with the Examiner that the Appellant’s arguments
are not persuasive of reversible error in the obviousness rejections of claims
1–4, 7, 10–13, 16, 17, and 19–24 based on the fact-finding and the reasons
stated in the Answer, as well as in the Final Office Action and the Advisory
Action dated April 11, 2018. In addition to the reasons given by the
Examiner, we note that many of the Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive
because they are not supported by evidence. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 4 (“Dewey
replaces an internal combustion engine of an automobile with a fuel cell
because of an abundance of environmental air . . . .”); id. at 5 (“The addition
of an anode recycle loop having a pump would undoubtedly make
[Dewey’s] system louder.”). We add the following primarily to address the
Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief.
The Examiner’s rejections are based on a finding that the ordinary
artisan would have used Dewey’s fuel cell to power unmanned, underwater-
vehicle components because Dewey’s lighter, smaller, and more efficient
fuel cell system would further Dunn’s goal of improving an underwater
vehicle’s endurance. Final Act. 3–4. The Appellant asserts that “[t]he
Examiner has not identified anything in the references to suggest the fuel
cell system of Dewey that replaces a DC/DC converter for an automotive
system would address the endurance factor of unmanned underwater
vehicles.” Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner explained that a fuel
cell system having reduced mass, volume, and losses, as taught by Dewey,
would improve an underwater vehicle’s endurance because reduced mass
and increased efficiency would allow the vehicle to travel farther or longer
on the same amount of fuel, and reduced volume would provide increased
fuel storage capacity. Ans. 6. The Appellant has not explained persuasively
Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738

5
why this finding is erroneous or unreasonable. Compare id., with Appeal Br.
4 (arguing that Dunn improves endurance “[by] allowing for more fuel to be
stored on board”).
The Appellant maintains its contention that Dewey’s reduced mass,
volume, and losses are achieved by eliminating the need for a separate
DC/DC converter, and the Examiner has not identified evidence that Dunn’s
underwater vehicle utilizes a DC/DC converter. Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 4–5.
Responsive to the Appellant’s argument, the Examiner cited Dame (US
2006/0071630 A1, published April 6, 2006) Figure 1 and paragraph 23 as
evidence that DC/DC converters are used in unmanned underwater vehicles.
Ans. 5–6. The Appellant argues that Dame paragraph 23 discloses an
AC/DC converter not a DC/DC converter. Reply Br. 2. The Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive because Dame, in disclosing that the Figure 1
“motor drive 111a converts the direct current from the DC bus 109 to
alternating current for the motor 111b,” explicitly states that “DC motors can
also be used.” Dame ¶ 22.
The Appellant also continues to argue that the ordinary artisan would
not have combined the teachings of Dewey and Dunn because “the two
references teach different systems in different environments.” Reply Br. 1.
More specifically, the Appellant argues that “Dewey is an automotive
system that relies on air to provide the anode,” whereas “Dunn relies on
oxygen stored in solid form on board the unmanned underwater vehicle to
provide the anode.” Id. This argument is not persuasive for several reasons.
First, Dewey does not disclose that its fuel cell system is solely for use
in automobiles. Rather, Dewey describes a goal of the invention as
eliminating DC/DC converters in “[v]ehicles and other systems” that require
Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738

6
conversion of a fuel cell stack’s high voltage to a voltage level suitable for
powering low voltage devices. Dewey ¶ 9; see also id. ¶ 10 (“[A] fuel cell
system is disclosed that includes a fuel cell stack providing high voltage DC
output power, such as for operating a vehicle.” (emphasis added)); Claim 9
(“The system according to claim 1 wherein the system is a fuel cell system
on a vehicle.”).
Second, contrary to the Appellant’s argument, Dewey does not
disclose that the system relies on “air.” See Dewey ¶ 5 (“A hydrogen fuel
cell is an electrochemical device that includes . . . [a] cathode [that] receives
oxygen or air.” (emphasis added)); id. ¶ 7 (disclosing that in an automobile,
the fuel cell stack typically receives a cathode input gas as a flow of air). The
Appellant has not argued persuasively, or provided evidence, that Dewey’s
fuel cell stack would not be expected to function as intended using the
oxygen and hydrogen sources described in Dunn.
Finally, although Dewey does not explicitly disclose that its fuel cell
stack may be used in an unmanned underwater vehicle, as found by the
Examiner, both Dewey and Dunn describe their fuel cell stacks as
“consum[ing] oxygen and hydrogen to produce electricity to operate a
motor.” Ans. 4. Moreover, Dame evidences that at the time the present
application was filed, it was known that the same fuel cell could be used in
automobile and unmanned underwater vehicle power generation systems.
Dame Abstract, ¶ 19.
As to claim 22, the Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown
that Dewey discloses a fuel cell system wherein “each of the proton
exchange membrane cells provides between 0.6 and 0.9 volts” (claim 22).
Reply Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive because it fails to identify error
Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738

7
in the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner in rejecting this claim: “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to make the
proton exchange membrane cells of modified Dewey with a useful voltage
as taught by Scartozzi” (Final Act. 9 (emphasis added)). See Scartozzi ¶ 7
(“Experience has shown that a single fuel cell membrane electrode assembly
of a typical design produces a useful voltage of only about 0.45 to about 0.7
volts D.C. under a load.”).
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–4, 7, 10–13, 16, 17, and 19–24 for the reasons stated
in the Final Office Action, the Advisory Action, the Answer, and above.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 10–13,
16, 17,
19–21, 23
103 Dewey, Jahnke, Dunn 1–4,
10–13, 16,
17, 19–21,
23

7 103 Dewey, Jahnke, Dunn,
Matsukawa
7
22 103 Dewey, Jahnke, Dunn,
Scartozzi
22
24 103 Dewey, Jahnke,
Mohajeri
24
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7,
10–13, 16,
17, 19–24

Appeal 2019-005064
Application 14/566,738

8
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).
AFFIRMED