Appeal 2007-0909
Application 10/881,407
Claim 10 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a system for producing
electricity, and is representative of the claims on appeal:
10. A system for producing electricity, comprising:
a gasifier operable to produce a fuel gas from a solid fuel for reaction
in a fuel cell; and
a fuel cell operable to receive the fuel gas from the gasifier and to
produce electricity from a reaction between the fuel gas and an oxidant,
wherein unreacted fuel gas from the fuel cell is recirculated through the fuel
cell;
wherein the unreacted fuel gas from the fuel cell is configured to
exchange heat to produce steam.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in this reference:
Keefer US 2004/0131912 A1 Jul. 8, 2004
Appellants request review of the ground of rejection of claims 10
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Keefer (Answer 3-5;
Br. 4).
The primary issue in this appeal is the interpretation to be made of the
limitation “wherein the unreacted gas from the fuel cell is configured to
exchange heat to produce steam” in claim 10. During prosecution before the
USPTO, a claim is interpreted by giving the terms thereof the broadest
reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written
description in the Specification unless another meaning is intended by
Appellants as established therein, and without reading into the claim any
disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir.
2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013