Ex Parte GRUNE et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-1907                                                        
          Application No. 09/214,893                                                  


          dynamic pressure of a relative airstream at least partly forces             
          the coolant into the cooling system.                                        
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Gill                              3,939,935         Feb. 24, 1976           
          Fletcher et al. (Fletcher)        5,470,671         Nov. 28, 1995           
          Rogers                            5,671,802         Sep. 30, 1997           
          Lorenz et al. (Lorenz)            5,794,732         Aug. 18, 1998           
          Skeel et al. (Skeel)              6,129,056         Oct. 10, 2000           
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to an electrical             
          vehicle, and method for operating the fuel cell system for an               
          electric vehicle, wherein the fuel cell system comprises an                 
          integrated cooling system that is arranged in the vehicle so that           
          the dynamic pressure of a relative airstream forces coolant,                
          i.e., air, into the cooling system.  According to appellants,               
          "[a] fuel cell stack is preferably located at the radiator of the           
          vehicle and the relative wind directly cools the individual fuel            
          cells" (page 3 of Brief, second paragraph).                                 
               Appealed claims 14-17, 19, 29 and 30 stand rejected under              
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of              
          Lorenz and Rogers.  Claims 20, 21 and 23-27 stand rejected under            
          § 103 as being unpatentable over the stated combination of                  
          references further in view of Skeel.  In addition, claim 28                 




                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007