Appeal 2007-3580
Application 10/359,976
cell must be kept moist and that reversing the flow directions of the fuel and
oxidant streams enhances the ability to maintain the proper moisture level
for the ionic membrane (Chow, col. 1, ll. 20-30). Chow discloses that “in a
preferred embodiment . . . the method further comprises periodically
reversing the flow direction of a fuel stream substantially simultaneously
with the flow direction reversals of the oxidant stream” (Chow, col. 5, ll. 8-
12). Chow further discloses that “in this [preferred] embodiment, the fuel
stream is preferably directed to flow in a direction substantially opposite to
the oxidant stream flow direction” (Chow, col. 5, ll. 23-25).
Based on these disclosures, we find no convincing merit in
Appellants’ argument that Chow only discloses having the oxidant and fuel
streams flow in the opposite direction of one another. Rather, Chow clearly
discloses that the embodiment where the oxidant and fuel streams run in an
opposite direction of one another is a “preferred” embodiment (Chow, col. 5,
ll. 8-25). By necessary inference, Chow’s non-preferred embodiment must
include having the fuel and oxidant streams run in the same direction. All of
the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ
507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Accordingly, we find that Chow inferentially discloses to one of
ordinary skill in the art to reverse the flow directions of oxidant and fuel
streams flowing in the same direction, albeit this is a non-preferred
embodiment. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Chow teaches away from Appellants’ claim recitation that the fuel and
oxidant streams flow in the same direction for a majority of operating time.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013