Appeal 2006-2522
Application 10/279,632
Appellants do not separately argue claims 2-13, 15, and 16, which are
dependent upon claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2-13, 15, and 16 stand or fall
together with claim 1 (see Br. 4, second paragraph).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that the two primary references, Chun and Isono,
both disclose a fuel cell having the presently claimed first and second flow
plates, an electrolyte layer between the plates, and a cathode between the
first plate and the electrolyte layer wherein the cathode comprises electro-
lytic and non-electrolytic polymers and a catalyst. As recognized by the
Examiner, neither of the primary references discloses a combination of
different catalysts on the cathode. However, as explained by the Examiner,
Surampudi discloses that the cathode of a fuel cell may comprise different
platinum catalysts, i.e., supported and non-supported platinum catalysts.
Although Surampudi does not explicitly teach that the different catalysts
may be combined together on the cathode, the Examiner has properly cited
the relevant case law for the proposition that it is a matter of obviousness for
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine two or more materials when each
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007