Ex Parte Childs et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 13, 2019

13180812 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/180,812 07/12/2011 35089 7590 FOGLER RUBINOFF LLP 116 Albert Street, Suite 701 OTTA WA, ON KIP 5G3 CANADA 02/15/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Montgomery W. Childs 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 132091 3150 EXAMINER AYAD,TAMIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2019 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): ederenyi@foglers.com mgrant@foglers.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MONTGOMERY W. CHILDS and WILLIAM DEBURGER Appeal2017-004810 Application 13/180,812 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants (Montgomery W. Childs and William DeBurger) appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--8, and 12-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). The Invention The claims are to a photovoltaic solar panel. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A photovoltaic solar panel capable of clearing snow and ice accumulated on a surface thereof, the photovoltaic solar panel comprising: a. a plurality of photovoltaic cells arranged adjacent one another in a plane; b. a first transparent glass sheet comprising low Fe glass overlaying the photovoltaic cells, the glass sheet having a first Appeal2017-004810 Application 13/180,812 side positioned towards the photovoltaic cells and an opposite second side having a flat surface extending along the entirety of the second side; c. a transparent layer, having a thermal conductivity, separating the glass sheet and the photovoltaic cells, wherein the transparent layer is a layer of transparent polymer, and d. an array of electrical heating microfilaments comprising silver positioned within the transparent layer and not directly on the photovoltaic cells or the glass sheet such that uniform thermal heat distribution is promoted across the glass sheet, wherein the photovoltaic cells, the glass sheet, the transparent layer and the electrical heating web[ 1J are assembled without a frame, and the electrical heating microfilaments in the array being arranged in, each of the electrical heating micro filaments in the array having a diameter of between 10 to 50 microns, wherein the glass sheet and the photovoltaic cells directly contact the polymer layer; and wherein the transparent layer is sufficiently thick to decrease the amount of heat transferred from the microfilaments, when in use, to the photovoltaic cells, without compromising the transparency of the transparent layer. Stephens Poss Weiss Ward The References us 4,313,023 US 2005/0005785 Al US 7,129,444 B2 US 2012/0180844 Al The Rejection Jan.26, 1982 Jan. 13,2005 Oct. 31, 2006 July 19, 2012 Claims 1, 4--8, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Stephens in view of Weiss, Poss, and Ward. 1 The term "the electrical heating web" lacks antecedent basis and apparently should be "the array of electrical heating micro filaments". 2 Appeal2017-004810 Application 13/180,812 OPINION We reverse the rejection. Stephens discloses a solar cell array comprising an optically-transparent optical medium (silicone encapsulant 54) between solar cells ( 40) and a light-transparent primary optical medium (glass 11) ( col. 4, 11. 43-63; col. 6, 11. 28-32; Fig. 3). Weiss discloses "a heater grid design for plastic panels or windows capable of defrosting greater than or equal to 75% of the viewing area in a manner that emulates the performance of a conventional heater grid on a glass panel" ( col. 2, 11. 31-35). The heater grid (15) has a first group of grid lines (20) having width W1 and a second group of grid lines (35) having width W2, where W2/W1 is less than or equal to about 0.5 (col. 8, 11. 55-57; col. 9, 11. 15-18; Fig. 3). "A W2/W1 ratio outside this region may result in a heater grid design that is either aesthetically unpleasant or does not meet industry standard requirements for unobstructed vision" (col. 9, 11. 18-21). The grid lines (20, 3 5) may be conductive wires or filaments (col.I 1, 11. 4-- 8). The heater grid (15) may be placed between silicone protective coatings when facing either the interior or exterior of a vehicle ( col. 12, 11. 59---63; col. 13, 11. 18-25). "A heater grid [15] integrally formed between layers of protective coatings is a preferred method due to its ability to evenly distribute heat across the surface of the window" (col. 13, 11. 16-18). An exemplified layered window structure comprises two transparent glass panels, a plastic film on the interior surface of each transparent glass panel, and a heater grid between the plastic films (Table 2f). Poss discloses a trash compactor powered by a photovoltaic (PV) cell array (Abstract). "[H]eating elements may be placed above, beneath or 3 Appeal2017-004810 Application 13/180,812 within the PV array, in order to melt snow or ice that is covering the PV array" (if 50). The Examiner concludes (Ans. 21 ): [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrally form electrical heating microfilaments in the silicone layer of Stephens, as taught by Weiss, because the electrical heating microfilaments promote uniform thermal heat distribution across the glass sheet (Weiss - C13/Ll 7-25). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to make such a modification because Poss discloses heating elements may be placed above, beneath or within a PV array in order to melt snow or ice that is covering the PV array (Poss - [0050] Ll 1-13). Weiss's silicone layers between which a heater grid can be positioned are protective coatings for the heater grid ( col. 13, 11. 18-25), whereas Stephens's silicone optical medium (54) within which, according to the Examiner's rationale, heating microfilaments are to be placed (Ans. 4), is an encapsulant that "bonds the facets [(in linear land area 18)] and cells [40] to the support 11 as well as assures that there is no air space between the cells [ 40] and the primary optical medium 11 or the facets and the primary optical medium 11" (col. 4, 11. 59---63). The Examiner does not establish that Weiss's disclosure that a heater grid between silicone protective coatings on a window's interior or exterior surface evenly distributes heat across the window's surface would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to place a heater grid within Stephens' s optical medium silicone encapsulant that functions to bond facets and solar cells to a glass top support structure (primary optical medium 11) and to assure that there is no air space between the solar cells or facets and the top glass 4 Appeal2017-004810 Application 13/180,812 support structure, rather than placing it between silicone protective coatings on the interior or exterior surface of the glass top support structure. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner). Nor does the Examiner establish that Poss's disclosure that heating elements can be placed above, beneath or within a PV array would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to place Weiss's heater grid within Stephens' s optical medium silicone encapsulant. Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner's rejection is based upon impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellants' disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art."). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 4--8, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Stephens in view of Weiss, Poss, and Ward is reversed. The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5