Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 to meet the further limitation of claim 9 [St-Pierre at col. 2, ll. 30–66, especially 51–66].
2 (Answer at 4-5, ¶ C.)
3 25. The Examiner further states that "claims 10, 20, 28, 29, 31, 33-35, 44 and 47 [are]
4 all also addressed by the final rejection." (Answer at 5, ¶ C.)
5 26. Appellants, in their Reply Brief filed 18 August 2006 ("Reply"), do not dispute
6 the Examiner's findings with regard to the teachings of Okamoto or the adequacy of the
7 Examiner's rejections in this regard.
8 27. With regard to the claims depending from independent claims 50 and 61, namely,
9 claims 51–60 and 62–68, respectively, Appellants urge that the failure of the prima facie
10 case of obviousness applies equally to these claims, and that the Examiner's rejections
11 should be reversed. (Brief at 13.)
12 28. Substantively, Appellants assert that Okamoto discloses exposing the cathodic
13 region of a fuel cell to atmospheric oxygen only with a "blower 46 for introducing
14 atmospheric air." (Brief at 8, bold original.)
15 29. Appellants conclude that "Okamoto is specifically directed to low-pressure, low
16 complexity air delivery systems that merely require a blower to transport air from
17 proximate the fuel cell stack to the cathode region of the fuel cell." (Brief at 10.)
18 30. According to Appellants, St-Pierre only incidentally mentions enriching the
19 oxygen content of air using an oxygen-selective membrane system. (Brief at 9.)
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013