Appeal 2007-3580
Application 10/359,976
reversing the flow direction. Rather, “oscillations” may be construed to
include “any variation in the flow of fuel or oxidant in a fuel cell . . .”
(Specification ¶ [0019]) in addition to reversing the flow direction of the fuel
and oxidant streams recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 55 and claim 1
from which it depends, are not limited to reversing the flow directions of the
fuel and oxidant streams as the only form of oscillation. Rather, claims 1 and
55 may include other forms of oscillation in addition to reversing the flow
directions of the fuel and oxidant streams.
Since the Examiner’s proposed combination includes adding Chow’s
reversal of the flow directions of the fuel and oxidant streams to Carlstrom,
Jr.’s method of controlling water and concentration gradients in a fuel cell
using pressure oscillations, the combination would include both reversing
the flow direction as required by claim 1 and pressure oscillations of the fuel
and oxidant streams.1 In light of our claim construction regarding claim 55,
the “phase shifting . . . oscillations” feature of claim 55 is construed as
encompassing the pressure oscillations of Carlstrom, Jr., which Carlstrom,
Jr. discloses may be controlled with an out-of-phase pattern (i.e., phase
shifting).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claim 55 over Carlstrom, Jr. in view of Chow.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
of claims 1-6, 8-11, 55, and 57-59 over Carlstrom, Jr. in view of Chow.
1 Appellants do not dispute that the combination of Carlstrom, Jr. in view of
Chow would have included both pressure oscillations and reversing the flow
directions of the fuel and oxidant streams (Br. 5-6).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013