Appeal No. 2006-0587
Application No. 10/017,483
examiner as a “load-resistor response” and is recognized by the
examiner as being opposite to the previously quoted feature
recited in the last clause of claim 1.
In the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of the answer, the
examiner presents the following obviousness position in an
attempt to account for this claim 1 distinction:
With respect to the specific load-resistor response, it
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made to reverse the specific load-
resistor response of the fuel cell system of Keller et al
because Keller et al themselves disclose coupling a load to
the fuel cell stack when the output voltage falls below the
threshold value and thus, uncoupling the load from the fuel
cell stack when the output voltage exceeds the threshold
value and therefore, one of ordinary skill would envision
that such opposite functionality could be an obvious
variation of the claimed invention as it will only be
necessary to reset the fuel cell control system parameter to
operate in an opposite fashion to satisfy the claimed
requirement. Thus, it is within the level of ordinary
engineering skill to reverse a function or adjust a
controlling signal for responding to an opposite criteria or
parameter.
For multiple reasons more fully detailed in the brief, the
examiner’s above quoted obviousness conclusion is without
perceptible merit.
In the first place, there is no prior art support whatsoever
for the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious “to
reverse the specific load-resistor response of the fuel cell
system of Keller” (answer, page 7). On the record before us, it
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007