Appeal 2007-3580
Application 10/359,976
Moreover, we add that with regard to claims 1, 5 and 8-10, the
oscillations of the fuel and oxidant streams recited in the claims can include
oscillations other than reversals of the flow direction. Claim 1 recites
“oscillating said streams, including reversing flow direction.” The plain
meaning of that claim phrase includes other forms of oscillation (e.g.,
pressure or flow rate oscillation) in addition to the required “reversing flow
direction.” In fact, such a construction of the claim phrase is supported by
Appellants’ Specification which indicates that “oscillating” is to be
construed as “any variation in the flow of fuel or oxidant in a fuel cell . . .”
(Specification ¶ [0019]). Therefore, the “oscillated,” “oscillations” and
“oscillating” language of claim 5, claim 8, and claims 9 and 10, respectively,
may refer to other forms of oscillation (e.g., pressure) encompassed by the
language of claim 1. Accordingly, Carlstrom, Jr.’s disclosures regarding the
oscillation patterns for pressure would satisfy the features of claims 5 and 8-
10.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 5 and 8-10 over Carlstrom, Jr. in view of Chow.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 55
Appellants argue that the amount of fuel or oxidant in a fuel cell may
be greater than would be required by the fuel cell, such that the Examiner’s
position that the amount of fuel would necessarily have to match the amount
of oxidant during normal operation of the fuel cell is not correct (Br. 9-10).
Appellants further argue that the “phase shifting” to facilitate matching has
not been shown to be present in the art by the Examiner (Br. 10).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013