Appeal No. 2006-1761
Application No. 10/153,074
The examiner has relied on the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Kovar et al. (Kovar) 5,977,249 Nov. 02, 1999
Koschany et al. (Koschany) 6,475,656 Nov. 05, 2002
(filed Jan. 29, 1998)
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koschany in view of Kovar (Answer, page 3).
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kovar (Answer, page 5).1
Based on the totality of the record, we affirm both
rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Koschany discloses every limitation
of the claims on appeal, including a fuel cell comprising a
membrane electrode unit with a sealant material that forms a seal
between two or more fuel cell components, where the sealant
1We note that the examiner erroneously lists claim 17 as rejected
over Koschany in view of Kovar (Answer, page 3) although claim 17
has been cancelled (Brief, page 2). Furthermore, we note that
appellants state that claims 18-20 have been rejected “on non-
specified grounds” (Brief, page 3) even though the ground was
specifically stated in the final Office action dated Jan. 21,
2005 (page 8; see the Answer, page 8; Reply Brief, page 1).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007