Appeal No. 2003-1907
Application No. 09/214,893
stands rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over the stated
combination of references further in view of Gill.1
Appellants have not challenged the examiner's grouping of
the claims at page 4 of the Answer via a petition to the
commissioner or otherwise. Accordingly, the appealed claims
stand or fall together as set forth at page 4 of the Answer.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute that there is no patentable
distinction between the fuel cell system within the scope of the
appealed claims and that disclosed by Fletcher. Appellants also
1 The examiner's statement of the grounds of rejection in
the Answer fails to list the final rejection of claim 22 under
§ 103 over Fletcher in view of Lorenz and Rogers. However, since
the examiner's treatment of the separately argued claims at
page 4 of the Answer, as well as appellants' Brief, address the
rejection of claim 22, the examiner's omission of the rejection
of claim 22 at page 5 of the Answer is considered inadvertent
error. Also, we note that the examiner should refer back to only
one office action in stating the ground of rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007