Appeal 2007-0285
Application 10/064,808
communication with an inlet and outlet of a housing, as recited by Claim 1”
(Br. 8, penultimate paragraph). It is not clear whether Appellant is arguing
that JP ‘827 fails to show at least one direct flow channel defined by a fuel
stack, or whether Appellant is arguing that the reference does not show the
channel in fluid communication with an inlet and an outlet of a housing.
Manifestly, the totality of Appellant’s sentence is accurate since JP ‘827, as
recognized by the Examiner, fails to show a housing. As for the direct flow
channel defined by at least one fuel cell stack, we agree with the Examiner
that the reference drawings clearly depict direct flow channels for fuel and
oxidant through valves 61 and 71, respectively, and then through flow
channels directly through the fuel cell stack.
Appellant also maintains that:
[I]t is not clear to Appellant whether replacing the oxidizing gas
bypass valve 9 of JP 10-255827 with the guiding of supply air
to the fuel cell stacks within the enclosure of Spaeh would
render the resulting combination unsuitable for the purpose of
JP 10-2555827, namely stopping power generation in a fuel cell
for which an abnormality is detected.
(Br. 9, second paragraph). However, Appellant’s argument misses the thrust
of the Examiner’s rejection. As explained by the Examiner, the rejection
under § 103 is not predicated upon modifying the system of JP ‘827 to
incorporate the specific features of Spaeh. Rather, Spaeh is cited simply as
evidence for the obviousness of providing the system of JP ‘827 with a
housing.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007