Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 THE REJECTIONS
2 3. The Examiner maintains the following rejections3:
3 a. Claims 1–3, 6, 7–10, 20, 27–29, 31, 33–35, 44, and 47 are rejected under
4 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Okamoto and St-Pierre. (Answer at 2,
5 incorporating the Final Rejection, mailed 9 June 2005 ("Final Rejection") 2–3, ¶ 4, and 4,
6 ¶ 5.)
7 b. Claims 13, 16, 50–58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
8 the combined teachings of Okamoto, St-Pierre, and Fuel Cell Systems. (Answer at 2,
9 incorporating Final Rejection 4–5, ¶ 6, 7–9, ¶ 9, and 9–10, ¶ 10.)
10 c. Claims 45, 46, 48, 49, 61–66, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
11 as being obvious over the combined teachings of Okamoto, St-Pierre, and Ito. (Answer
12 at 2, incorporating Final Rejection 6–7, ¶ 8, 10–12, ¶ 12.)
13 d. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
14 teachings of Okamoto, St-Pierre, and Appleby. (Answer at 2, incorporating Final
15 Rejection 5–6, ¶ 7.)
16 e. Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
17 teachings of Okamoto, St-Pierre, Fuel Cell Systems, and Appleby. (Answer at 2,
18 incorporating Final Rejection 10, ¶ 11.)
19 f. Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
20 teachings of Okamoto, St-Pierre, Ito, and Appleby. (Answer at 2, incorporating Final
21 Rejection 13, ¶ 13.)
3 Due to the posture of this appeal, we have combined the nominally
separate rejections of various claims over the same prior art
references.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013