Appeal 2007-3580
Application 10/359,976
Rather, as noted above, Chow inferentially discloses the fuel and oxidant
streams flow in the same direction.
Moreover, Appellants concede that Carlstrom, Jr. discloses that the
fuel and oxidant streams flow in the same direction a majority of operating
time (i.e., all the time) (Br. 5, ll. 7-8). Therefore, the combination of Chow’s
method of managing water in a fuel cell by reversing the flow directions of
the fuel and oxidant streams with Carlstrom, Jr.’s method for removing
water from a fuel cell and controlling concentration gradients in a fuel cell
using pressure oscillations of the fuel and oxidant streams, would satisfy
Appellants’ argued claim 1 features of “reversing the flow” and “oscillating
said streams comprises flowing said fuel stream and said oxidant stream in a
same direction through said fuel cell during a majority of operating time.”
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 6, 11, and 57-59.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5 AND 8-10
Appellants argue that Carlstrom, Jr. does not disclose reversing the
directions of the fuel and oxidant flow streams, and Chow does not disclose
oscillating the flow streams in phase with one another (claim 5), reversing
the flow direction at irregular intervals (claim 8), varying the flow rate of
said streams in a sinusoidal pattern (claim 9), or varying the flow rate of said
gas streams according to a rectangular-wave, square-wave, or other
polygonal-wave pattern (claim 10) (Br. 8-9). Appellants further argue that
Carlstrom, Jr.’s disclosure regarding the oscillation patterns is solely with
regard to pressure variations, not flow reversals (Reply Br. 4-6).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013