Appeal 2007-1259
Application 10/054,213
includes the means recited in the Specification and equivalent means.
Stimming has not explained why the Wilkinson’s structures are not
equivalents thereof. First of all, Stimming acknowledges that the structures
recited in its Specification and the Wilkinson structures achieve the same
result. As noted by the Examiner, the purpose of Wilkinson is the same as
that recited in the Stimming Specification, i.e., to improve fuel cell
performance by removing contaminants such as carbon monoxide. (Answer
6-7). The only argument we have been able to locate in Stimming’s brief
that possibly could be construed to address whether the structures of
Wilkinson and Stimming are equivalent is at page 5 of the brief where
Stimming, in discussing obviousness (which is not the rejection at hand, see
our discussion below), states:
Furthermore, Wilkinson raises the anode potential
without the need for means for impressing a positive voltage
pulse to the anode. In contrast to the claimed invention,
Wilkinson manipulates the fuel supply to the anode using the
already existing fuel supply controller. Since Wilkinson teaches
how to raise the anode potential using a pre-existing part of the
fuel cell, Wilkins provides no motivation for providing the
means for impressing a positive voltage pulse to the anode.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 2 are also not rendered
obvious by Wilkinson under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
This portion of the Brief essentially states that Stimming and
Wilkinson do not use the exact same structure to achieve the desired result.
However, Stimming has not explained why the structure it uses to impress
the positive voltage pulse is not equivalent to the structure Wilkinson
teaches to impress a positive voltage pulse. While we could speculate on
reasons why the structures might not be equivalent, it is Stimming’s place,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013