Appeal No. 95-5066
Serial No. 07/931,330
ordinary skill in the art since such a combination of forming the Kaun fuel cell using the
Heubner [sic] honeycomb design is shown to be conventional in Kotchick. (Substitute
Ans. page 8)
The examiner has not explained why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the isolated method steps of the references to obtain the claimed invention, e.g., why
or how the continuous ribbon printing step of Kaun would have been used to modify the spaced
welding process of Huebner, or what motivation one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
to expand the specific laminated structure of Kaun to form a honeycomb core fuel cell,
especially in view of Kaun's explicit disclosure of compressing the laminate on itself to assure
electrolyte contact between adjacent layers. Thus, the foregoing reasons and those reasons
given above in rejections 3a. and 3b., we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness. Therefore, this rejection is reversed.
4 & 5. Rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Kaun, Kotchick and Heubner in view of Buckley and
Rejection of 5-7 as unpatentable over Kaun, Kotchick and Heubner in view of Italplastic
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by the applied
prior art of Kaun, Kotchick and Heubner under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 3 and 5-7. Dependent claims are nonobvious under § 103 if the independent claims9
9 We have also reviewed the Buckley and Italplastic references additionally applied in the rejection of
dependent claims 3 and 5-7, respectively, but find nothing therein which remedies the deficiencies of Kaun, Kotchick
and Heubner discussed above regarding claim 1.
Page 17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007