Appeal 2007-0489
Application 10/190,822
two separate and distinct elements (i.e., the main fuel cell and the sensor
system) that are recited in claim 9 (Br. 8).
The issue before us is whether the Examiner has shown that
Clingerman’s stack of fuel cells, that includes fuel cells that function as a
sensor, meets the limitations of claims 9 that requires a sensor system
coupled to the fuel stream delivery system at one or more locations upstream
of the main fuel cell under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue turns on whether
Clingerman describes a fuel cell system that comprise a sensor system
coupled to the fuel stream delivery system at one or more locations upstream
of the main fuel cell stack of fuel cells. We answer this question in the
negative.
We agree with Appellants that Clingerman describes a fuel cell
system that includes a main fuel cell (32), but it does not include a sensor
system that is coupled to the fuel stream delivery system at a location
upstream of the main fuel cell (32) (Br. 8). The Examiner has indicated that
the fuel cell stack (32) comprises one or more fuel cells (94) that function as
sensing fuel cells. The Examiner asserts that the language “upstream” is
construed to mean that the sensing fuel cell will receive the fuel gas before a
non-sensing fuel cell (Answer 4). We do not agree. The claim language
specifically indicates that the sensor system is located upstream of the main
fuel cell. The sensing system described in Clingerman is located within the
main fuel cell. As such the description appearing in Clingerman does not
anticipate the subject matter of claim 9 within the meaning of § 102.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013