Appeal 2007-0489
Application 10/190,822
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Clingerman in view of Zhang. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Clingerman in view of Grot. We reverse. Claims 11, 12, and
28 depend upon claim 9. The Zhang and Grot references were not cited to
address the differences in claim 9 discussed above. The Examiner has not
presented other evidence to remedy the deficiency in the Clingerman
reference discussed above. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we reverse
the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 28.
The Rejections over Wilkinson.
Claims 9, 10, 15-17, 26 and 29-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) over Wilkinson.
The Examiner contends Wilkinson describes a fuel cell system that
comprises a stack of fuel cells and inclusive therein are fuel cells that
function as sensors for the various constituent components of the fuel
stream. The Examiner contends that Wilkinson’s fuel system anticipates the
fuel cell system of claim 9 (Answer 4-5).
Appellants contend that the Examiner impermissibly has relied on a
single element (i.e., the fuel cell stack 210) in Wilkinson’s system to meet
two separate and distinct elements (i.e., the main fuel cell and the sensor
system) that are recited in claim 9 (Br. 10).
The issue before us is whether the Examiner has shown that
Wilkinson’s stack of fuel cells that includes fuel cells that function as a
sensor meets the limitations of claim 9 that require a sensor system coupled
to the fuel stream delivery system at one or more locations upstream of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013