Appeal 2007-0655
Application 10/314,157
fuel mixture in a fuel cell that has an exothermic reaction and then
determining the temperature of the exothermic reaction and regulating the
fuel based on said temperature” (Answer 5, ¶ 2, last sentence).
Concerning the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 2 over Acker in
view of Okamoto, we fully concur with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pressure
operative valve of Okamaoto for the thermally actuated valve of Acker in
order to take advantage of the high pressures that exist in the fuel cell. We
do not agree with Appellants’ argument that Acker provides a teaching away
from using a pressure operated valve. In our view, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have appreciated that substituting a pressure operated valve for
the temperature operated valve of Acker would result in the loss of the
benefit articulated in Acker. It is well settled that it is a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate a feature of the
prior art along with its attendant advantage. We agree with the Examiner
that “[b]ecause valves are well known in the art for their different
controlling characteristics, it is within the skill of a person having ordinary
skill in the art to substitute one valve for another in order to take advantage
of the properties of the systems to control different aspects of the systems”
(Answer 6, ¶ 1). We note that Appellants base no argument upon objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
Appellants lodge a complaint that the finality of the Examiner’s
Action of January 19, 2006 is improper. However, as explained by the
Examiner, this is a petitionable matter not subject to our appellate review.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013