Ex Parte Pflaesterer - Page 7

               Appeal  2006-0249                                                                           
               Application 10/315,401                                                                      

               the secondary references does not support Appellant’s argument.  When                       
               applying a seal as taught by the secondary references, the circumferential                  
               sealing material would extend into the sealing gap as claimed.  This is                     
               because the sealing material would enter the gap between separators 6 and                   
               extend toward seals 10 and 20.  The claim does not require that the sealing                 
               material fill the gap, it merely requires that it is “extending into the gap.”              
               The sealing material would extend into the gap as claimed.                                  
                      We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of                  
               obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 1 and claims 2, 5-7,                
               and 9-13 which stand or fall with claim 1 which has not been sufficiently                   
               rebutted by Appellant.2                                                                     
                      Claim 3                                                                              
                      Appellant argues the subject matter of claim 3 separately.  Claim 3                  
               requires that the sealing element have clamp edges extending over first and                 
               second outer edges of the outer cell separator plates.  The Examiner notes                  
               that Inoue includes sealing groove 7 and linear protrusion 8 on the surfaces                
               of the separators and seals 10 and 20 on these surfaces.  The Examiner                      
               further finds that the seals are clamped between the separators in assembly.                
               We agree with Appellant that the above mentioned structures are not clamp                   
                                                                                                          
               2 We wish to add that we further find that Wozniczka anticipates the subject                
               matter of claim 1.  Wozniczka describes a seal 80 meeting all the limitations               
               of the claim (Wozniczka, p. 12, l. 29 to p. 14, l. 30).  The membrane                       
               electrode assembly 5 of Wozniczka has lateral surfaces set back with respect                
               to lateral surfaces of the cell separator so as to leave a sealing gap as shown             
               in Figure 2.  Encapsulating seal 80 has a sealing band peripherally enclosing               
               the composite and has a peripheral sealing strip extending into the sealing                 
               gap (Fig. 2).  The sealing strip seals in a gas-tight manner by compression                 
               between the cell separator places as claimed (p. 16, ll. 22-27).                            
                                                    7                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007