Appeal 2007-3580
Application 10/359,976
availability of fuel at an anode of said fuel cell with an availability of
oxidant at a cathode of said fuel cell.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Carlstrom, Jr. US 6,093,502 Jul. 25, 2000
Chow US 6,753,106 B2 Jun. 22, 2004
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 55, and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Carlstrom, Jr. in view of Chow.
The Examiner finds that Carlstrom, Jr. discloses all that is in
independent claim 1 except for reversing the flows of the oxidant and fuel
(Answer 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
combine Chow’s disclosure to reverse flow of the fuel and oxidant streams
in Carlstrom, Jr.’s fuel cell to improve water management within the fuel
cell, which Chow discloses as a benefit resulting from reversing the flows of
the oxidant and fuel (Answer 4).
Appellants separately argue independent claim 1, and dependent
claims 5, 8, 9, 10, and 55. Accordingly, non-argued dependent claims 2-4,
6, 11, and 57-59, which directly depend on claim 1, stand or fall with
claim 1.
OPINION
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
Appellants argue that the claim features “reversing the flow direction”
and “oscillating said streams comprises flowing said fuel stream and said
oxidant stream in a same direction through said fuel cell during a majority of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013