Appeal 2007-1687
Application 10/136,781
THE § 102 REJECTION
The Examiner finds that the claim 32 fuel cell stack is anticipated by
Bisaka’s fuel cell stack shown in figures 1 and 7 (Answer 4-5). This finding
is erroneous.
Claim 32 requires “said at least one side plate holding said first and
second end plates in a spaced relation so that at least a planar portion of each
of said major surfaces of said first and second end plates imparts a
compressive force on said fuel cell assembly through said first and second
end assemblies.” This requirement is not satisfied by the fuel cell stack of
Bisaka. As shown in figure 7 of Bisaka, compressive force on the fuel cell
assembly is imparted by concave portion 27 of end plate 22A rather than the
planar portion of end plate 22A. Indeed, a gap exists between the inboard
planar portion of end plate 22A and the fuel cell assembly of Bisaka (Bisaka
4, ¶ [0061]; fig. 7). It is, therefore, impossible for this inboard planar
portion to impart compressive force on the fuel cell assembly as required by
claim 32.
For this reason, we cannot sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 32 as
being anticipated by Bisaka.
THE § 103 REJECTION BASED ON BISAKA AND EDWARDS
The Examiner has correctly found that claim 17 distinguishes from
Bisaka by requiring that the overlap between the at least one side plate and
the at least one end plate is “continuously adjustable” (Answer 7). In
Bisaka, the corresponding overlap is achieved via serration 29 which
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013