Appeal 2007-0285
Application 10/064,808
will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
JP ‘827, like Appellant, discloses a fuel cell assembly comprising at
least one bypass flow channel and at least one direct flow channel, as well as
a control system which controls the flow of oxidant from the inlet to the
direct and bypass flow channels. We appreciate that the configuration of
these elements in Appellant’s drawings is different than the configuration set
forth in JP ‘827. However, the claims on appeal do not reflect such a
configurational distinction. We agree with the Examiner that the only
distinction between the claimed fuel cell assembly and the fuel cell assembly
disclosed by JP ‘827 is the claimed housing. However, we agree with the
Examiner that the reference disclosure that the fuel and oxidant gas are
supplied from the outside would have suggested the incorporation of a
housing around the fuel cell assembly of JP ‘827, particularly in view of
Spaeh’s disclosure of a housing around a fuel cell assembly for providing
thermal insulation and a leakproof environment in order to improve the
overall efficiency of the fuel cell assembly. Inasmuch as it is quite
conventional in a wide variety of arts to include a housing around an
operating assembly for a number of reasons, such as safety, we are
convinced it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide a housing around the fuel cell assembly of JP ‘827.
The thrust of Appellant’s argument is that it would not have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of JP ‘827 in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007