BAKERSUN

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 2021

2021000030 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/172,970 06/03/2016 Ivan I. Scheulov 132314.010817 8628 37705 7590 12/24/2021 GREENBERG TRAURIG (DEN) 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): cadanoc@gtlaw.com clairt@gtlaw.com gtipmail@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte IVAN I. SCHEULOV ____________ Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10, 11, 17–20, 22, and 30–32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The invention relates photovoltaic solar cell systems. Spec. ¶ 3. Bifacial solar cells are semiconductor-based solar cells which are 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Bakersun as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 2 photoactive at both their upper and lower surfaces. Id. ¶ 16. The Specification describes a system including a solar panel having sets of bifacial solar cells, and a reflector proximal one side of the solar panel to promote reflection of sunlight toward the panel. Id. ¶¶ 4, 15. Claim 10 reads as follows: 10. A photovoltaic system comprising: (i) a solar panel (100) having solar cells, the solar panel (100) comprising: (a) a first set of solar cells, comprising: (I) a first row (112) of solar cells electrically connected in series; wherein the first row (112) has a first long axis (113); (II) a second row (114) of solar cells electrically connected in series; wherein the second row (114) is adjacent to the first row (112); wherein the second row (114) has a second long axis (115); wherein the second long axis (115) is coincidental to the first long axis (113); wherein the first row (112) is electrically connected to the second row (114) in parallel; (b) a second set of solar cells, comprising: (I) a third row of solar cells electrically connected in series; wherein the third row has a third long axis; (II) a fourth row of solar cells electrically connected in series; wherein the fourth row is adjacent to the third row; wherein the fourth row has a fourth long axis; wherein the fourth long axis is coincidental to the third long axis; wherein the third row is electrically Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 3 connected to the fourth row in parallel; wherein the first set of solar cells is electrically connected to the second set of solar cells in series; wherein at least some of the solar cells are bifacial solar cells (110); and (ii) a first reflector disposed below the first set of solar cells; wherein the first reflector is a single reflector having a single arcuate surface; and (iii) a second reflector disposed below the second set of solar cells; wherein the first reflector comprises: a first upper edge; and a second upper edge; wherein both the first upper edge and the second upper edge are outside a perimeter of the first set of solar cells. Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in dispute). Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 10. REJECTIONS I. Claims 10, 11, 22, and 30–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ortabasi,2 Armstrong,3 and Watters.4 II. Claims 10, 11, 22, and 30–32 alternatively stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Watters, Yagiura,5 and Armstrong. 2 Performance of A 2X CUSP Concentrator PV Module Using Bifacial Solar Cells, IEEEE Xplore, 26th PVSC Oct. 1997. 3 US 2011/0023935 A1, published February 3, 2011. 4 US 2010/0089436 A1, published April 15, 2010. 5 US 2007/0175509 A1, published August 2, 2007. Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 4 III. Claims 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ortabasi, Armstrong, Watters, Shan,6 and Scheulov.7 IV. Claims 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Watters, Yagiura, Armstrong, Shan, and Scheulov. OPINION Rejection I: Obviousness over Ortabasi, Armstrong, and Watters With regard to Rejection I, Appellant argues the claims as a group, focusing on features recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 6–17. We select claim 10 as representative of the group. Claims 11, 22, and 30–32 stand or fall with claim 10. Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds Ortabasi discloses a solar panel having a first set of bifacial solar cells connected as recited in claim 10, and a reflector positioned along one side of the panel. Non-Final Act. 4–5 (citing Ortabasi Fig. 2). The Examiner acknowledges Ortabasi’s reflector includes four cusps, rather than a single arcuate surface as claimed. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds Watters teaches providing a single arcuate reflector surface at one side of a bifacial solar panel for the same general purpose as Ortabasi—to reflect light to a photoactive backside of the panel—such that substituting Watters’ single reflector surface for Ortabasis’s multi-cusped reflector surface would have constituted an obvious and predictable substitution of one known reflector for another. Id. at 7–8. 6 US 2010/0243042 A1, published September 30, 2010. 7 US 2011/0277819 A1, published November 17, 2011. Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 5 Appellant argues Watters would not have suggested the presently claimed first and second reflector arrangement because Watters teaches a single reflector for the entire solar panel. Appeal Br. 10–12. According to Appellant, substituting Watter’s single bottom reflector for Ortabasi’s multi- cusped bottom reflector would have resulted in “a single bottom reflector underneath Ortabasi’s solar panel. Id. at 12. The problem with Appellant’s argument is that it does not address the full combination of references relied upon by the Examiner. Ortasabi’s photovoltaic solar device is depicted in Ortasabi’s Figure 2, which we reproduce below. Figure 2 is a perspective view schematic of a photovoltaic module. The depicted module includes one set of two parallel-connected strings of series-connected solar cells. Ortasabi at 1177. A reflector comprising four reflective cusps positioned at one side of the module spans beyond opposing sides of the connected solar cell strings. See id. Fig. 2; see also id. at 1177 (stating the aperture area extended by the pair of cusps is twice the size of the top cell string area”). Watter’s Figure 2 is reproduced below. Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 6 Figure 2 is a perspective view schematic of a photovoltaic module. The depicted module includes reflector 16 having a single arcuate surface that spans wider than a solar cell array carried on panel 18. Id. ¶¶ 52, 55, Fig. 2. With the foregoing figures in mind, it is apparent that Appellant and the Examiner are in agreement to the extent that applying Watters’ teaching to Ortabasi would have yielded a single-surfaced reflector spanning wider than Ortabasi’s depicted set of parallel-connected solar cell strings. Indeed, the Examiner provides an annotated version of Ortabasi’s Figure 2 demonstrating that result. See Non-Final Act. 10; Appeal Br. 15. What Appellant’s argument does not address is the Examiner’s further finding that Armstrong would have provided a reason to duplicate such a module and reflector arrangement. Non-Final Act. 5–6 (finding Armstrong teaches arranging multiple photovoltaic devices as submodules connected in series to beneficially increase the open circuit output voltage of a photovoltaic solar power systems). That is, the Examiner presents evidence to support the determination that the combined teachings of Ortabasi, Watters, and Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 7 Armstrong would have suggested a structure having multiple modules connected in series, with each module having a pair of parallel-connected solar cells strings (as taught by Ortasabi) spanned by a single arcuate surface reflector (as taught by Watters). Appellant also argues substituting Watters’ reflector for that of Ortasabi would have been more than a simple substitution because developing reflector design can be expensive and, in some instances, inventive. Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant does not persuasively show why one skilled in the art would not reasonably have expected Watters’ reflector design to be suitable for Ortasabi’s intended purpose. Appellant additionally argues the Examiner’s proposed modification would materially change Ortabasi’s principle of operation, and that the Examiner uses impermissible hindsight, but fails to present persuasive evidence or reasoning to support either assertion. Appeal Br. 14– 17; Reply Br. 3. Finding Appellant’s arguments insufficient to identify error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, we sustain Rejection I as applied to each of claims 10, 11, 22, and 30–32. Rejection II: Obviousness over Watters, Yagiura, and Armstrong Relevant to Appellant’s arguments regarding Rejection II, the Examiner finds Watters discloses a photovoltaic system comprising an array of light chambers, with each light chamber including a reflector positioned below a set of solar cells arranged on a panel, but fails to specify a configuration for the solar cells within each light chamber. Non-Final Act. 16–17 (citing Watters Fig. 11). The Examiner finds Yagiura would have Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 8 provided one of ordinary skill with a reason to configure solar cells within each light chamber as a parallel-connected pair of series-connected strings. Id. at 17–19. Appellant solely argues the Examiner’s rejection improperly disregards the term “solar panel” in claim 10. Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 8–9. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s rejection would result in the recited “first set of solar cells” and “second set of solar cells” being located on different solar panels, rather than being part of the same solar panel as claimed. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant does not attribute any particular structural or functional requirement of the recited solar panel apart from its having a first set and a second set of solar cells. See id. at 17– 19. Claim 10 itself recites, in pertinent part, “a solar panel . . . comprising: (a) a first set of solar cells . . . [and] (b) a second set of solar cells.” Appellant does not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s finding that Watters’ array of light chambers, each having a set of solar cells, would not have fallen within the scope of the term “solar panel” as that term is recited in the claim. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error. The Examiner’s Rejection II as applied to each of claims 10, 11, 22, and 30– 32 is sustained. Rejections III–IV: Claims 17–20 Appellant does not separately argue either Rejection III or Rejection IV. As such, the Examiner’s rejections applied to claims 17–20 are sustained for the same reasons as those set forth above. Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 9 Rejection V: Nonstatutory Double Patenting The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, 17–20, 22, and 30–32 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent 9,397,269 in view of Watters. Non-Final Act. 29–31. Appellant presents no argument concerning this ground of rejection. Accordingly, Rejection V is sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 11, 17–20, 22, and 30– 32 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-000030 Application 15/172,970 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 10, 11, 22, 30–32 103(a) Ortabasi, Armstrong, Watters 10, 11, 22, 30–32 10, 11, 22, 30–32 103(a) Watters, Yagiura, Armstrong 10, 11, 22, 30–32 17–20 103(a) Ortabasi, Armstrong, Watters, Shan, Scheulov 17–20 17–20 103(a) Watters, Yagiura, Armstrong, Shan, Scheulov 17–20 10, 11, 17– 20, 22, 30– 32 Nonstatutory double patenting 10, 11, 17– 20, 22, 30– 32 Overall outcome 10, 11, 17– 20, 22, 30– 32 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED