Appeal 2006-3385
Application 10/407,401
rejection of claims 36, 39 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Allen are affirmed.
II. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in JP ‘365 that
an air blower would be an appropriate means for cooling the interior of a
cabinet containing a fuel processor or reformer. (Br. 17). Appellants also
maintain that the Examiner failed to indicate the specific manner in which
one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the air blower of JP ‘365
into the fuel processor of Allen (Br. 18), and has not provided any guidance
as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would use Clawson’s components
in the system of Allen. (Br. 21).
In determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the relevant
inquiry is “whether the person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the
understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by
the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the
combination recited in the claims.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In our view, the Examiner
properly established a motivation to combine the teachings of Allen and JP
‘365 based on the disclosure in JP ‘365 that pre-heating with an air blower
improves all-around generation efficiency. (Answer 8, citing JP ‘365,
Abstract). Appellants themselves concede that the use of an air blower to
provide pre-heated reactant air to a fuel cell might improve power generating
capacity of the fuel cell. (Br. 17). See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312,
24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.Cir.1992) ("As long as some motivation or
suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013