Ex Parte Harris

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2014

12552238 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte SCOTT C. HARRIS
____________
Appeal 2012-008608
Application 12/552,238
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1–4, 7, 8, and 10–21.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant does not appeal the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 9
(see, e.g., Br. 4). Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
Examiner, the Examiner should consider Appellant to have withdrawn
claims 5 and 9 from the appeal and process these claims as indicated in the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1214.05.
Appeal 2012-008608
Application 12/552,238

2
Appellant claims a system comprising a vehicle including batteries
and a charging system for the batteries which includes a solar cell and "a
moving part for said solar cell, which moves the solar cell into a different
position depending on a condition of the vehicle" (independent claim 1, see
also dependent claim 7/5, Fig. 1). For example, the solar cell would be
moved into an active position blocking the vehicle windshield when the
vehicle is in a parked condition and moved into a stowed position when the
vehicle is in a driving/moving condition (Spec. para. 20). Appellant also
claims a corresponding method which includes the step of moving the solar
cell into a different position depending on the condition of the vehicle
(independent claim 10).

A copy of representative independent claim 1, non-appealed
independent claim 5, representative dependent claim 7, and representative
dependent claim 20 (taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief)
appears below.
1. A system, comprising:
a vehicle housing;
a connection to a plurality of battery cells housed within the vehicle
housing;
a charging system for said batteries, wherein said charging system
includes at least one solar cell; and
a moving part for said solar cell, which moves the solar cell into a
different position depending on a condition of the vehicle.

5. An electrically operated vehicle system comprising:
at least one movable solar cell; and
an electrically controllable moving part, which is electrically
energized to move said solar cell between a first stowed position where it is
not in use, and a second position where said solar cell covers at least one
Appeal 2012-008608
Application 12/552,238

3
window of the vehicle when in use, where said solar cell in operation
charges a battery that provides power for the moving of said electrically
controllable moving part.

7. A system as in claim 5, wherein said moving part moves said solar
cell into said second position automatically when the vehicle is stopped, and
moves the solar cell into said stowed position automatically when the
vehicle is moving.
20. A system as in claim 1, wherein said moving part is electrically
operated based on power from at least one of said batteries, and wherein said
solar cell charges said at least one of said batteries.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects:
claims 1–4 and 10–13 as unpatentable over Ulrich (DE 40 03 513 A1,
published Aug. 8, 1991)2 in view of LaFrance (US 6,227,601 B1, patented
May 8, 2001);
claims 5 and 9 as unpatentable over Wilkinson et al. (US 7,140,662
B1, patented Nov. 28, 2006) in view of Kirkpatrick (US 6,856,116 B1,
patented Feb. 15, 2005) (which rejection Appellant does not appeal as
indicated previously);
claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Wilkinson, Kirkpatrick,
and LaFrance;
claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over
Kirkpatrick in view of LaFrance; and
claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over Kirkpatrick, LaFrance, and
Wilkinson.

2 In order to be consistent with Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to this
reference, which names Ulrich Radons as inventor, by the name Ulrich.
Appeal 2012-008608
Application 12/552,238

4
Appellant's arguments against the respective rejections on appeal are
applied to all of the claims in each rejection (i.e., the individual claims in
each rejection are not argued separately). Therefore, in assessing the
appealed rejections, we will focus on representative claims 1, 7, and 20 with
which the other commonly rejected claims will stand or fall.

We will sustain each of the appealed rejections based on the findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action and in the Answer. The following
comments are added for emphasis.

The Rejection based on Ulrich and LaFrance

The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
the system (i.e., a vehicle with a movable solar cell) of Ulrich with a part
which moves the solar cell into a different position depending on a condition
of the vehicle as required by claim 1 in view of LaFrance's teaching of a part
for so moving a sunshield (Final Office Action (FOA) 5).

Appellant contests this obviousness conclusion by arguing that
"Ulrich teaches moving [the solar cell] based on the position of the sun . . .
[and] says nothing about moving depending on the condition of the vehicle"
(Br. 13).

This argument is unpersuasive because it is based on a factual error.
As correctly explained by the Examiner, Ulrich teaches moving solar array
Appeal 2012-008608
Application 12/552,238

5
(i.e., solar cell) 10 into a folded position when the vehicle is in motion and
into an unfolded position when the vehicle is stopped (Ans. 11 (citing the
English translation of Ulrich; see also the Ulrich Abstract)). Therefore,
contrary to Appellant's belief, Ulrich teaches moving the solar cell into
different positions depending upon whether the vehicle is in a moving or
stopped condition. It is significant that Appellant does not challenge the
Examiner's explanation in the record of this appeal (i.e., no Reply Brief has
been filed).

For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–4 and 10–13
based on Ulrich and LaFrance.

The Rejection based on Wilkinson, Kirkpatrick, and LaFrance

Because the rejection of claims 5 and 9 has not been appealed,
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's conclusion that it would have
been obvious to provide the retractable sunshade system of Wilkinson with a
solar cell as required by independent claim 5 in accordance with the teaching
of Kirkpatrick (FOA 8). The Examiner further concludes that it would have
been obvious to provide the resulting sunshade/solar cell system with a part
which automatically moves the sunshade/solar cell into respective active or
stowed positions when the vehicle is stopped or moving as required by claim
7/5 in accordance with the above discussed teaching of LaFrance (id. at 8–
9).

Appeal 2012-008608
Application 12/552,238

6
Concerning this latter obviousness conclusion, Appellant argues that
"[n]othing in LaFrance does anything that would make obvious using
LaFrance's teaching to move a solar cell" (Br. 17).

For the reasons explained in the Answer, we fully agree with the
Examiner that Appellant's argument lacks convincing merit (Ans. 14–15).
Specifically, Appellant fails to address and therefore fails to reveal error in
the Examiner's determination that the combined teachings of the applied
references would have suggested the above provision.

It follows that we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8,
16, and 17 as unpatentable over Wilkinson, Kirkpatrick, and LaFrance.

The Rejection based on Kirkpatrick and LaFrance

Appellant's argument against this rejection (Br. 8) corresponds to
those discussed previously and is unpersuasive for the reasons presented
above and in the Answer (Ans. 15–16).

The rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 as unpatentable
over Kirkpatrick and LaFrance is sustained.

The Rejection based on Kirkpatrick, LaFrance, and Wilkinson

Appellant challenges this rejection with the unembellished argument
that "[t]he patent office has provided no evidence that any prior art charges
Appeal 2012-008608
Application 12/552,238

7
the same battery that is used for the movement [as required by claim 20]"
(Br. 19).

Once again, Appellant fails to address the Examiner's determination
that the combined teachings of the applied references would have suggested
the claim feature under consideration as fully detailed by the Examiner
(FOA 10, Ans. 16–17). As a consequence, the above argument is not
persuasive.

We sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over
Kirkpatrick, LaFrance, and Wilkinson.

Conclusion

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc