Appeal 2007-4240
Application 10/663,949
to Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 1-3), claim 1 is couched in product-by-
process format even if a plasma spraying method is not specified per se.
See, e.g., In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 696-97 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We will not,
of course, read illustrative embodiments into the claims as limitations. See,
e.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We find Ramanarayanan would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill
in this art a tubular SOFC having an anode fuel electrode prepared “by
forming a skeleton of [yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ)] around nickel
particles” on the YSZ electrolyte. Ramanarayanan 23.3 The YSZ
electrolyte can be formed by, among other things, an electrochemical vapor
deposition process (EVD) and “a more cost-effective non-EVD technique,
such as plasma spraying or colloidal/electrophoretic deposition followed by
sintering.” Id. 23-24. The anode fuel electrode is a
layer of nickel/YSZ . . . deposited by first applying nickel
powder slurry over the electrolyte and then growing YSZ
around the nickel particles by the same EVD process as used
for depositing the electrolyte. Deposition of a Ni-YSZ slurry
over the electrolyte followed by sintering has also yielded
anodes that are equivalent in performance to those fabricated by
the EVD process; use of this non-EVD process results in a
substantial reduction in the cost of manufacturing SOFCs.
Id. 24.
3 We note here that, as pointed out by the Examiner, the Folser Declaration
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 filed February 28, 2005, does not apply with respect
to any of the references relied on in the grounds of rejection advanced on
appeal because the references qualify as prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Answer 17; 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(a)(2) (September
2004). We further note Appellants did not cite this document in the
Evidence Appendix to the Brief. Br. 18. Thus, we do not further consider
this document.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013