Appeal 2007-3378
Application 10/715,458
As seen from the above description, there is a pattern of operation in
the process of Fuglevand. That pattern applies in accordance with
“predetermined operational conditions” which involve changing the
operational state of the fuel cell by shunting the electrical current between
the anode and the cathode. It follows that Fuglevand describes operating as
required by step (a) of claim 16.
Given the breath of the claim and the description within Fuglevand,
we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding that Fuglevand describes operating the fuel cell “according to at least
one predetermined operation pattern, the predetermined operation pattern to
apply at least one predetermined operation condition to change an operation
state of the fuel cell” as recited in claim 16. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The law of
anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject
patent teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly ‘prior art,’ it is only
necessary that the claims under attack, as construed by the court, ‘read on’
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are
found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.”).
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
With regard to the other rejections, Appellants merely contend that the
additional references do not cure the deficiencies of Fuglevand. For the
reasons stated above, we sustain the rejections of claims 8-10 and 12-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013