Appeal 2007-0489
Application 10/190,822
The Examiner contends Meltser describes a fuel cell system that
comprises first and second hydrogen sensors 10 and 14, shown in FIG. 1 of
Meltser, that anticipates the fuel cell system of claim 9 (Answer 3).
Appellants contend the first and second hydrogen sensors 10 and 14
of Meltser are used to control the amount of oxygen supplied to the PROX
reactor 2 in the PROX reactor system. Appellants further contend that the
first and second hydrogen sensors 10 and 14 do not provide indications of
when they are exposed to at least one of the electrocatalytic poisons that
inhibit an electrochemical reaction between a fuel and an oxidant that is
induced by one or more electrocatalytic sites of a main fuel cell, as recited in
claim 9 (Br. 5).
The first issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 15, 17, and 35-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). The issue turns on whether the Examiner has established a
reasonable belief that the first and second hydrogen sensors 10 and 14
provide indications of when they are exposed to at least one of the
electrocatalytic poisons, and if the Examiner met his initial burden, whether
the Appellants have adequately rebutted the Examiner's position by showing
that the first and second hydrogen sensors 10 and 14 do not provide
indications of when they are exposed to at least one of the electrocatalytic
poisons. Specifically, the issue is: Do the hydrogen sensors of Meltser
provide an indication of when they are exposed to at least one
electrocatalytic poison? We answer this question in the affirmative.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013