Ex Parte Drake et al - Page 6



              Appeal 2007-0489                                                                      
              Application 10/190,822                                                                
                    A claimed invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 when all of            
              the elements of the claimed invention are found in one reference.  See                
              Scripps Clinic & Research Found. V. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576,              
              18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  The prior art reference must                  
              disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or              
              inherently.  In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431               
              (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                                                     
                    The present record establishes that Meltser teaches a fuel cell system          
              that includes a main fuel cell, a fuel stream delivery system, an oxidant             
              stream delivery system, and a sensor system.  Appellants contend that these           
              sensors of Meltser do not provide an indication of exposure to poisons to the         
              fuel stream (Br. 5; Reply Br. 2).  It is undisputed that Meltser discloses that       
              the information obtained from these sensors is utilized to determine the              
              appropriate amount of oxygen to add to the fuel stream for removal of the             
              poisonous carbon monoxide.  Thus, the sensors of Meltser provide an                   
              indication of the level of poisons contained in the system.  As such, we              
              determine that the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that Meltser            
              teaches a fuel cell system that provides an indication of when they are               
              exposed to electrocatalytic poisons.                                                  
                    Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 35 are not persuasive.  Claim             
              35 specifies that the fuel system comprises a valve coupled between the fuel          
              stream delivery system and the main fuel cell.  The Examiner relies on valve          
              (8) of Meltser for describing the limitations of claim 35.  Meltser discloses         
              hydrogen used in the fuel cell is derived from reformation of methanol or             
                                                 6                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013