Appeal 2007-2553
Application 10/367,347
by the Examiner as allowable but depending on a rejected claim (Final
Office Action dated Nov. 18, 2005, unnumbered pages 3-4). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a fuel cell device
comprising a fuel cell, a conversion unit for converting material mixtures to
a hydrogen-containing fluid stream, a separation device for separating the
hydrogen-containing fluid stream into at least one hydrogen-enriched
material stream and a residual gas stream, where the separation device is
formed as a mass separation device (Br. 2-3). Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A fuel cell device, comprising a fuel cell unit; a conversion unit for
converting material mixtures to a hydrogen-containing fluid stream
provided to the fuel cell unit; a separation device for separating the
hydrogen-containing fluid stream, into at least one hydrogen-enriched
material stream and a gaseous residual stream, said separation device
being formed as a mass separation device for separating different
masses.
The Examiner has relied upon the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Muradov US 6,670,058 B2 Dec. 30, 2003
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Muradov (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s analysis overlooks that
Muradov produces a hydrogen fluid stream free of CO/CO2 which is
transferred to the fuel cell via a cyclone used for separating catalytic carbon
particles (Br. 4). Appellants further contend that Muradov fails to disclose
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013