Appeal No. 2004-2053
Application 09/773,704
(4) Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Bonnefoy, Bohrer and Singh.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Sections 102 and 103 rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections for those
findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We adopt the
examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own and add the
following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
As found by the examiner (Answer, pages 4-6), Bonnefoy
teaches routing at least some power produced by a fuel cell
stack not consumed by a first load to a battery (second load) for
the same reasons disclosed by the appellants. The appellants
acknowledge that “Bonnefoy teaches automatically routing electric
power to a battery in the event of a deficiency between the power
that is consumed by the load 4 and the power that is available at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007