Appeal 2007-0489
Application 10/190,822
A claimed invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 when all of
the elements of the claimed invention are found in one reference. See
Scripps Clinic & Research Found. V. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576,
18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
The present record establishes that Meltser teaches a fuel cell system
that includes a main fuel cell, a fuel stream delivery system, an oxidant
stream delivery system, and a sensor system. Appellants contend that these
sensors of Meltser do not provide an indication of exposure to poisons to the
fuel stream (Br. 5; Reply Br. 2). It is undisputed that Meltser discloses that
the information obtained from these sensors is utilized to determine the
appropriate amount of oxygen to add to the fuel stream for removal of the
poisonous carbon monoxide. Thus, the sensors of Meltser provide an
indication of the level of poisons contained in the system. As such, we
determine that the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that Meltser
teaches a fuel cell system that provides an indication of when they are
exposed to electrocatalytic poisons.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 35 are not persuasive. Claim
35 specifies that the fuel system comprises a valve coupled between the fuel
stream delivery system and the main fuel cell. The Examiner relies on valve
(8) of Meltser for describing the limitations of claim 35. Meltser discloses
hydrogen used in the fuel cell is derived from reformation of methanol or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013