Sitaram Ramaswamy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

14113617 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
14/113,617 10/24/2013 Sitaram Ramaswamy P99307US.0/130609.580USPC 5280
500 7590 08/03/2020
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
DIGNAN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SITARAM RAMASWAMY

Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 7–12, and 16–19.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Audi AG, of
Ingolstadt, Germany. (Appeal Br. 1.)
2 Claim 5 has been withdrawn from consideration and claims 4, 6, 13–15, 20,
and 21 have been canceled. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A fuel cell system comprising:
a fuel cell stack including an anode plate and a cathode plate
arranged on opposing sides of a proton exchange membrane,
and coolant channels including an internal coolant passage in
thermal contact with at least one of the cathode and anode
plates;
a pressure drop device in the coolant channels, the
pressure drop device lowering a pressure of coolant in the
internal coolant passage to sub-atmospheric pressure during
operation;
a compression device fluidly connected to and directly
downstream from the internal coolant passage by a coolant
steam loop configured to convey a sub-atmospheric pressure
coolant steam from the internal coolant passage to the
compression device, the compression device increasing the
pressure and a temperature of the sub-atmospheric pressure
coolant steam during operation to a super-atmospheric pressure
and maintaining the coolant steam within a steam region of a
pressure-enthalpy curve, the compression device further
connected to an inlet of the internal coolant passage via a
coolant return line of the coolant steam loop; and
a spray nozzle having an outlet arranged in the inlet of
the internal coolant passage, the spray nozzle providing water
droplets during operation to the internal coolant passage for
conversion to the coolant steam at sub-atmospheric pressure.

Appeal Br. 10–11, Claims Appendix.

The following rejections are presented for our review:
I. Claims 1–3, 8–11, and 16–19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Reiser (US 5,700,595, issued Dec. 23,
Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617

3
1997) (Reiser) in view of Van Dine (US 6,120,923 issued Sept. 19, 2000)
(Van Dine) and Herd (US 2003/0116654 A1, published June 26, 2003)
(Herd), Reiser (US 2006/0141330 A1, published June 29, 2006) (Reiser
’330) and Kwon (US 8,216,736 B2, issued July 10, 2012) (Kwon).
II. Claims 7 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Reiser, Van Dine, Herd, Rainville et al. (US
2008/0226956 A1, published Sept. 18, 2008) (Rainville), Reiser ’330, and
Kwon.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).3
We consider the record to determine whether Appellant has identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
We limit our discussion to the independent claim 1 as argued by
Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2–3, 7–12, and 16–19 stand
or fall with independent claim 1. Appellant did not present arguments
addressing separately rejected dependent claims 7 and 12.

3 The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 7–20.)
Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617

4
Because we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s factual
findings, analysis, and conclusion, we adopt them as our own. We add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellant initially argues that the combination of Reiser, Reiser ’330,
and Kwon does not teach or suggest a pressure drop device in the coolant
channels, the pressure drop device lowering a pressure of coolant in the
internal coolant passage to sub-atmospheric pressure during operation as
required in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 11–13.) Appellant argues Reiser ’330 and
Kwon may be evidence that utilizing heat generated by the operation of the
fuel system for cooling in the fuel system was known is insufficient to
satisfy the evidentiary burden required to assert that “evaporative cooling at
sub-atmospheric pressure within coolant channels was well-known in the
art.” and therefore, that no motivation exists to modify Reiser to arrive at the
limitations of claim 1. (Appeal Br. 13.)
Appellant’s arguments lack persuasive merit. The claimed invention
is directed to a fuel cell comprising a pressure drop device. Appellant has
not refuted the Examiner’s position that the structure of Reiser meets the
requirements of the claimed pressure drop device. Appellant has not refuted
the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language “pressure drop device in
the coolant channels” is the structure of the “channels”. (Final Act. 9.) The
Examiner recognizes Reiser discloses coolant water flow fields are formed
in the pore plates 27 and 28, which are interposed between adjacent cells in
the power plant. (Final Act. 7; Reiser col. 3.) This disclosure of Reiser is
comparable to the description of pressure drop device in the present
Specification. The Specification specifically states:
Passage of processed water through the porous layers 44, 46 during
Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617

5
fuel cell operation provides the pressure drop device 24, which
enables the coolant that is at a temperature less than 100°C to boil in
the sub-atmospheric pressure.
(Spec. ¶ 20.)

The above disclosure from the present record supports the Examiner’s
position that the structure of Reiser’s cooling channels are structurally the
same as the claimed pressure drop device. The Examiner cited Reiser ’330
and Kwon for teaching that evaporative cooling was well-known and that
sub-atmospheric pressure in the coolant channels was known in conventional
cooling plates. (Ans. 17.) Appellant has not directed us to evidence that
establishes the structure described by Reiser is insufficient for evaporative
cooling at sub–atmospheric pressure in the cooling channels.
Appellant argues Reiser fails to teach a compression device fully
connected in directly downstream from an internal coolant passage of a fuel
cell stacked as required by independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 14.) Appellant
specifically states “[t]he pump 34 of Reiser, however, is not described as
being configured to increase the pressure and temperature of a received sub-
atmospheric pressure coolant steam to a super-atmospheric pressure.”
(Appeal Br. 14.)
Appellant’s arguments lack persuasive merit. The Examiner
recognizes Reiser describes the pump as a pressurizing device. (Final Act.
9–10.) Reiser specifically states “the cooling water circulates through a
coolant Loop 36 which is pressurized by a pump 34. The pump 34
establishes a predetermined coolant water pressure in the Loop 36.” (Reiser
col. 4 ll. 61–65; Fig. 4.). The Examiner cites Van Dine for teaching the
compression of a coolant stream to super-atmospheric pressures after exiting
Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617

6
the cooling channels of the fuel cell because such steam was appreciated
within the art as a useful heating course elsewhere in fuel cell systems
generally. (Final Act. 10; Ans. 20.) Appellant’s invention is directed to a
fuel cell system however, the argument is directed to the operation of the
Van Dine system. Appellant has failed to articulate why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have reasonably expected that Reiser’s system
could have utilized a pressurizing device that would have been suitable for
compression of the coolant stream to super-atmospheric pressures.
“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success ... all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d
1351, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–
04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

Appellant argues the references cited by the Examiner fail to teach or
suggest the spray nozzle having an outlet arranged at the inlet of the internal
coolant passage as required by independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 17–19.)
Appellant argues Herd only teaches or suggests using spray nozzles to
provide atomized water to fuel or oxidant gas streams and therefore is silent
with respect to suggesting a spray nozzle for injection of water droplets into
an internal coolant passage of a fuel stack as required by claim 1. (Appeal
Br. 18.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant has not disputed the Examiner’s position argued that Reiser does
not provide specific limitations for the water inlet structure. Appellant has
not disputed that the use of spray nozzles controlled by a solenoid field, such
as described by Herd, were known in the art. Appellant has failed to direct
Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617

7
us to evidence that the use of a spray nozzle for injection of water droplets
into an internal coolant passage of a fuel stack provides unexpected results.
The predictable use of known prior art elements performing the same
functions they have been known to perform is normally obvious. See KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).

Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is premised on hindsight
because the elements in a pressure drop device in the coolant channels, a
compression device, and a spray nozzle as required by the claimed invention
are only found in Appellant’s disclosure. (Appeal Br. 10–12.)
Appellant’s argument has not explained, with any degree of
specificity (see Appeal Br. 10–12), why the Examiner’s proposed motivation
for modifying Reiser’s fuel cell system in view of Van Dine, Herd, Reiser
’330, and Kwon (i.e., to suggest in fuel cell system comprising a pressure
drop device, a compression device, and a spray nozzle (as discussed supra))
is erroneous or unreasonable. See Alcon Research, Ltd. v Apotex Inc., 687
F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[M]otivation to modify a prior art
reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation
that the patentee had.” (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
406, 420 (2007) (stating that it is error to look “only to the problem the
patentee was trying to solve”))). Each of the elements argued by Appellant
has been expressly addressed by the Examiner in the rejection as elements
that were a part of or reasonably pertinent to Reiser’s system.

For these reasons, and those the Examiner presents, we sustain the
Appeal 2019-005854
Application 14/113,617

8
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 7–12, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8–11,
16–19
103(a) Reiser, Van Dine,
Herd, Reiser ’330,
Kwon
1–3, 8–11,
16–19

7, 12 103(a) Reiser, Van Dine,
Herd, Rainville,
Reiser ’330, Kwon
7, 12
Overall
outcome
Porter, Isley 1–3, 7–12,
16–19

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED