Appeal No. 2004-2053
Application 09/773,704
controlled in response to the voltage detected. Thus, we concur
with the examiner that Bonnefoy necessarily teaches or would have
suggested decreasing or increasing the fuel flow in response to
the detection of a decrease or an increase in the power (voltage)
produced by the fuel cell stack and/or consumed by the first
load.
With respect to claims 5 and 7, the appellants do not
dispute the examiner’s determination that “it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was
made to both regulate a terminal voltage of the battery and have
the specific fuel flow decreased . . . in the method of . . .
Bonnefoy.” Compare the Answer, pages 8-9, with the Brief and the
Reply Brief in their entirety. Rather, the appellants argue that
claims 5 and 7 are allowable for the same arguments set forth
above. For the reasons indicated supra, we are convinced that
those arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 8, the appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s determination that “it would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
use a fuel processor (reformer) to provide fuel [flow] . . . .”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007