Appeal No. 2006-1311
Application No. 10/101,177
appellants' argument that the carbon paper substrate of
Yoshitake is not a porous carbon substrate to be without merit.
Appellants also contend that the problem of inadequate
water repellency in the electrode/membrane assembly of the
admitted prior art was discovered by appellants and, therefore,
there would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in
the art to add the water repellent layer of Yoshitake to the
assembly of the admitted prior art, which was taught to have
water repellency. However, Yoshitake teaches that under
operating conditions of low temperature, high current density
and high gas utilization ratio, condensation is likely to clog
the pores of the electrode body and, therefore, additional water
repellency is necessary. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the
water repellency problem recognized by appellants would have
been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and
appellants' solution of impregnating with a solution containing
a solvent-soluble fluorine-containing polymer having
substantially no ion exchange group would have been obvious in
view of the Yoshitake disclosure. In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241,
243-44, 147 USPQ 420, 421 (CCPA 1965).
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007