Appeal 2007-0285
Application 10/064,808
order to incorporate the features of Spaeh, for example, Spaeh’s supply air
being freely guided to the fuel cell stacks within the enclosure. Appellant
contends that “Spaeh teaches away from the use of a direct flow channel
configured to be in flow communication with the inlet and outlet, as recited
by Claim 1” (Br. 9, first paragraph). However, it is fundamental that it is not
necessary for a finding of obviousness under § 103 that all the elements or
teachings of one reference be fully combined, or incorporated with, those of
another reference. In re Griver, 354 F.2d 377, 381, 148 USPQ 197, 200
(CCPA 1966); In re Billingsley, 279 F.2d 689, 691, 126 USPQ 370, 372
(CCPA 1960). The proper inquiry is what the references, taken collectively,
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981). In the present case,
the Examiner expressly states that Spaeh “has been relied upon solely for its
teaching in Figures 1 and 2 that it is known in the art to enclose a fuel cell
stack in a housing having an inlet and an outlet, the inlet and outlet
configured to provide fluid communication to and from the housing”
(Answer, 18 and 19). In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to employ a housing for the fuel cell assembly of
JP ‘827 to secure the assembly, as well as the surrounding environment,
from contamination, in addition to the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
Appellant maintains that “the Examiner has pointed to no teaching in
JP 10-255827 of at least one direct flow channel that is defined by at least
one fuel cell stack, where the direct flow channel is configured to be in fluid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007