Appeal No. 2003-0094 Page 9
Application No. 08/995,786
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Singleton
system by providing a fuel cell upstream of the inlet to combustion chamber 5, with the
exhaust gases from the fuel cell being fed into the combustion chamber, as is the case
in Hendriks. The modified Singleton apparatus thus meets the terms of claim 21, in
that the compressor supplies a first stream of air to the oxidant inlet of a fuel cell and a
second stream of air to an inlet of the cooling turbine.
We therefore conclude that the combined teachings of Singleton and Hendriks
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
independent claim 21, and we will sustain this rejection. Since the appellants have
chosen to group claims 22-25 with claim 21 with regard to this rejection (Brief, pages 2
and 3), the rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Singleton and Hendriks
also is sustained. The same is true of claim 26, which although rejected under different
grounds (Endres was added), also was grouped with claim 21.
Although we have carefully considered the arguments presented by the
appellants with regard to this rejection, they have not persuaded us that the rejection
should not stand. These arguments (Brief, pages 5 and 6; Reply Brief, pages 2 and 3),
for the most part focus on the fact that the Hendriks apparatus is an electrical generator
and not an environmental control system and upon differences between the structure of
the Hendriks system and that of Singleton. However, the examiner applied Hendriks for
its teachings regarding the advantages gained by having a fuel cell that discharges its
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007