Appeal No. 2005-1209
Application No. 10/078,086
Claims 1, 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Kaufmann.
Based on the record before us, we agree with the appellants
that the examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case for
anticipation. Accordingly, we reverse the sole rejection at
issue.
Regarding each of the claims on appeal, lack of anticipation
is palpable.
Claim 1 calls for an “air/anode exhaust gas mixing station.”
We find nothing in Kaufmann capable of supplying air to be mixed
with anode exhaust gas. Mixer 9 in Kaufmann serves to mix
cathode exhaust gas with anode exhaust gas. As appellants
correctly point out, cathode exhaust gas cannot be characterized
as “air” by any stretch of the imagination. Air is a well known
gaseous mixture consisting essentially of nitrogen and oxygen in
particular proportions. As the examiner readily concedes, most
of the oxygen in the air stream that enters the cathode is
consumed in the fuel cell reaction and replaced with water vapor.
Air from which most of the oxygen has been removed can no longer
be characterized as “air.”
Both claim 1 and claim 4 mandate that the recited burner
assembly (claim 1) and associated method for producing steam
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007