Appeal No. 2006-0435
Application 10/028,173
facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we shall affirm the rejection at issue.
The basis for our decision follows.
As noted by the examiner, Allen teaches forming a GDL or electrode for
electrochemical cells essentially as claimed. However, Allen is silent with regard to any
need for a compression step.
Fan also teaches a method for producing similar GDL electrodes where the
product (a coated carbon cloth) is rolled between two rolls which exert a force on the
cloth sufficient to substantially eliminate cracks in the coating (Fan: designated
paragraphs 30 and 31).
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
prima facie obvious, within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to apply compression to the
GDL electrode of Allen to obtain the benefit (elimination of cracking) taught by Fan.
Appellant is of the view that since the purpose of the rolling step in Fan is to
eliminate cracks in the surface coating on the GDL cloth, an ordinary artisan would
expect that only “superficial deformation” of the surface would be required to obtain the
desired result.
We disagree with appellant on this point for two basic reasons.
First, we are of the opinion that a person of ordinary skill in this field would
understand that a substantial compression of the GDL may very well be necessary to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007