Appeal 2007-1687
Application 10/136,781
serration 29 of Bisaka’s fuel cell stack or by the continuously adjustable
overlap of the fuel cell stack made in accordance with the method of claim
17. Instead, the function of applying compression or clamping pressure to
Edwards’ blood oxygenator stack is performed by bolts 12 (col. 3, ll. 28-30).
Under these circumstances, we agree with Appellant that the applied
references contain no teaching or suggestion of replacing Bisaka’s serration
29 with a continuously adjustable feature as required by claim 17. On this
record, it is unknown whether the elongated holes 15 and screws 14 of
Edwards would be even capable of performing the stack compression
function of Bisaka’s serration 29. For all we know, the elongated holes and
screws of Edwards would be incapable of effecting the result of Bisaka’s
teeth coupling structure whereby the end plate 22 and the tension plate 24
are attached so as to avoid any slippage relative to each other (Bisaka 4,
¶ [0067], last sentence).
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 17-21, 23, 24, 26,3 and 28 as being unpatentable over Bisaka in view
of Edwards.
3 This rejection is further inappropriate as applied against dependent claims
23, 24, and 26. As correctly pointed out by Appellant (Appeal Br. 30), these
claims depend from non-rejected independent claims 1 or 10. Even more
inappropriately, the Examiner in the Answer does not even respond to the
Appellant’s point much less provide any explanation of why this rejection of
dependent claims but not their parent claims is proper.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013