Appeal 2006-2939
Application 10/178,826
Appellants submit that "[t]he fuel cell system described in the "493
reference relates to inflammable-gas purge equipment, and does not relate to
supplying hydrogen to the fuel cell power plant (1)" (sentence bridging
pages 10 and 11 of principal Br.). Appellants, therefore, conclude that "an
artisan would not have been motivated to combine the hydrogen supply
device disclosed in the '049 reference since the '493 reference does not relate
to the hydrogen supply portion of the fuel cell system" (page 11 of principal
Br., first para.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Simply because the
inventive aspect of JP '493 is not directed to the hydrogen supply side of the
fuel cell, this does not mean that the fuel cell of JP '493 does not have such a
supply side. Appellants have not refuted the Examiner's finding that the fuel
cell of JP '493 has a hydrogen supply passageway to the anodes, and,
therefore, Appellants' argument does not address the thrust of the Examiner's
rejection. Appellants have advanced no argument why it would have been
nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the oxygen getter of
JP '049 in a passageway that supplies hydrogen to the anodes of JP '493.
Nor have Appellants explained why it would have been nonobvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an oxygen getter in the exhaust
passageway for the fuel cell of JP '049. Appellants' argument that "none of
the references teach or suggest disposing oxygen getter means and
passageways leading to and from the anodes to protect them from oxidation"
(page 11 of principal Br., last sentence) states the obvious inasmuch as
neither reference is the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007