Appeal 2006-2637
Application 10/178,878
chambers in claims 1, 25, and 28, as suggested by the
Examiner, is improper in view of the specification and
prosecution history of the present patent application. See
Specification, pgs. 13-15; FIGS. 13-18.
Moreover, the Examiner has failed to provide any
evidence in the Mukerjee reference to support the conclusion
that the housing (80) further includes a middle plate having a
plurality of openings for communication between the lower and
upper chambers as set forth in claims 1, 25, and 28. As stated
above, the housing (80) is a single partitioned element having a
plurality of passages (87, 91, 95, 99, 102) that extend between
top and bottom plates (82, 84). For at least these additional
reasons, Appellants submit that the Mukerjee reference fails to
teach all of the limitations included in claims 1, 25 and 28 and
any claims that depend therefrom.
Reply Br. 2-3.
Thus, a dispositive issue raised in this appeal is: Whether Appellants
have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-
31 as being anticipated by Mukerjee? More particularly, has the Examiner
established that Mukerjee describes a fuel cell system meeting all of
Appellants’ claim limitations, including a fuel cell system having a
manifold with an upper partitioned element defining a pattern of upper
chambers, a lower partitioned element defining a pattern of lower chambers,
and a middle plate having a plurality of openings for effecting
communication between the upper and lower chamber, as well as the other
claim features including a top plate and a bottom plate?
We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the
negative. Hence, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection for
reasons well developed in Appellants’ Briefs.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013