Appeal No. 2004-2053
Application 09/773,704
electrical energy to a battery. Thus, we concur with the
examiner that determining whether to route excess energy to the
battery and routing the excess energy to the battery based on
such a determination inherently or necessarily occur in the
method described in Bonnefoy. In any event, we find that the
above teaching referred to by the examiner would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to make an appropriate determination
before routing the excess energy to the battery, motivated by a
reasonable expectation of achieving the advantages indicated in
Bonnefoy.
The appellants argue that Bonnefoy does not teach or suggest
“determining whether the battery [the second load] is capable of
being charged using said power produced by the fuel cell stack
and not consumed by the first load” as required by claims 2, 3
and 4. See, e.g., the Brief, pages 17-19. We do not agree.
Again, we refer to Bonnefoy’s teaching at column 2,
lines 58-60 which states that “[i]f the load 4 requires an
electric power lower than the one available at the fuel cell 1
terminals, the battery takes profit from the excess of electric
energy and recharges [emphasis added].” Implicit in this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007