Appeal No. 2006-0435
Application 10/028,173
Appellant also argues that his invention relates to the manufacture of a GDL
which can be incorporated into a membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which includes
a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM), without increased shorting across the PEM
even when the MEA is under compression. In contrast, the rolling step
of Fan is for the stated purpose of eliminating cracks in a surface coating.
This argument is unpersuasive essentially because appellant’s claims are not
limited to an MEA-type electrochemical cell which includes a PEM and, thus, relates to
a GDL which may be used in another type of electrochemical cell.
Furthermore, at best appellant may have observed yet another advantage
flowing from the teachings of the prior art. However, observation of another benefit
which results from following a suggestion in the prior art is not ordinarily sufficient to
establish a basis for patentability. In this context, see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190
USPQ 425, 427-28 (CCPA 1976); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560,
562 (CCPA 1972); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29
(CCPA 1971).
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007