Appeal 2007-2584
Application 10/248,472
2. Claims 1-4, 14-16, 18, 20-23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamashita.
3. Claims 17, 19, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Starner.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) YAMASHITA
CLAIM 13 and 24
Appellant argues that Yamashita does not disclose the claim 13
feature “controlling a temperature of the hydrogen gas to fill the vessel to its
specification pressure and maximum volume capacity while maintaining a
vessel pressure at less than or equal to the specification pressure” (Br. 6).
Appellant argues that Yamashita only discloses heating metal hydride in the
hydrogen storage tank 2 to absorb or desorb the hydrogen gas from the metal
hydride (Br. 6). Regarding claim 24, Appellant argues that Yamashita does
not disclose “cooling the hydrogen gas prior to entering the hydrogen gas
vessel” (Br. 7).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection for the reasons
below.
Appellant’s claim 13 method and disclosure require the hydrogen to
remain in gaseous form throughout the storage process (i.e., there is no
transformation to solid metal hydride) (Specification 4-9).
In contrast, Yamashita discloses a solid metal hydride storage system
for hydrogen gas (Yamashita, col. 2, ll. 18-29). Yamashita initially heats the
metal hydride in hydrogen supply tank 2 using heater H to release hydrogen
from the metal hydride (Yamashita, col. 3, ll. 39-58, col. 4, ll. 43-46). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013