Appeal No. 2003-1907 Application No. 09/214,893 do not challenge the examiner's legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fuel cell system of Fletcher in an electrical vehicle. Rather, the principal argument advanced by appellants is that "[n]either Fletcher nor Lorenz mention or suggest [sic, mentions or suggests] to use the dynamic pressure of a relative airstream with respect to a fuel cell system for cooling purposes in a car" (page 5 of Brief, second paragraph). Appellants urge that Rogers, relied upon by the examiner for a teaching of using air caused by the motion of a vehicle to cool a device in the vehicle, "has no relation to fuel cell systems at all" (id.). In essence, it is appellants' argument that there is no teaching in the cited prior art for cooling the fuel cell system of an electrical vehicle by arranging the system in the vehicle so that the relative airstream of the vehicle in motion serves to cool the fuel cell system. While appellants' argument has some appeal at first blush, we must agree with the examiner that inasmuch as it was known in the art to utilize the airstream generated by a moving vehicle to cool systems of the vehicle which need cooling, it would have been a matter of prima facie obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the well-known presence of a cooling -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007