Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 (Brief, Claim Appendix at 8–9; paragraph labels and emphasis added to highlight the
2 disputed limitations.)
3 Claim 61 differs from claim 1 in that claim 61 recites the presence of the
4 byproduct low-oxygen content stream and the use of that stream to pressurize the liquid
5 fuel; and in the absence of requiring the oxygen-enrichment assembly to include at least
6 one oxygen-selective membrane.
7 Independent claim 27 covers a process and resembles claim 1 in the recitation of
8 an oxygen-selective membrane; and it resembles claim 61 in the recitation of the low
9 oxygen-content byproduct stream; but it does not require any further use of the byproduct
10 stream.
11 Independent claim 50 covers a fuel cell system resembling the one covered by
12 claim 61 but not requiring a low oxygen-content byproduct stream or its use to pressurize
13 a liquid fuel.
14 Claim 45 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitations of a low oxygen-content
15 byproduct stream and its use to pressurize a liquid fuel. Claim 48 depends from claim 27,
16 and adds the limitations of a low oxygen-content byproduct stream and its use to
17 pressurize a liquid fuel.
18 B. Issues
19 1. Have Appellants demonstrated that the combination of the fuel cell system
20 disclosed by Okamoto and the membrane-based enrichment of oxygen suggested by
21 St-Pierre for use in fuel cells would create an inoperable device and is therefore
22 improper?
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013