Appeal No. 2006-2161
Application No. 10/248,326
reversal of the coolant flow path through the fuel cell
stack, thus preventing any portion of the fuel cells “from
always being exposed to, and cooled by, a coolant which is
either hotter or colder than the average coolant
temperature.” Kothmann, col. 5, l. 4-9. Uniformity of
temperature within the fuel cell stack is said to be
maintained by periodically reversing the coolant flow
direction. Kothmann, col. 5, l. 9-12.
The test for obviousness is “whether the teachings of
the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the
claimed invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986,
18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Obviousness,
based on a combination of references, regularly requires the
prior art to provide “a reason, suggestion, or motivation to
lead an inventor to combine those references.” Pro-Mold and
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[E]vidence of a
suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may flow from
the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, or . . . from the nature of the
problem to be solved.” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999,
50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of
Kothmann’s teaching to modify the unidirectional flow of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007