Ex Parte Krauser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2017

13154037 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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. 13/154,037 06/06/2011 Ranier Krauser DE920100009US1 1224 64002 7590 J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY 710 COLORADO # 5-C AUSTIN, TX 78701 EXAMINER PEREZ BORROTO, ALFONSO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RANIER KRAUSER, LAWRENCE A. CLEVENGER, KEVIN PRETTYMAN, BRIAN CHRISTOPHER SAPP, KEVIN S. PETRARCA, HAROLD JOHN HOVEL, GERD PFEIFFER, ZHENGWEN LI, and CARL JOHN RADENS Appeal 2016-005602 Application 13/154,03 71 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1, 4—7 and 9-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 The real party in interest International Machines Corporation. Appeal 2016-005602 Application 13/154,037 Appellants’ invention is directed generally to photovoltaic modules in which at least some of the solar cells are equipped with a control unit for diagnosing and/or controlling the module’s performance at cell level. (Spec. 1). Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A photovoltaic module comprising: a plurality of interconnected solar cells, a set of said solar cells, each of said solar cells in said microelectronic module including an application specific integrated circuit chip (ASIC) control unit attached to the back surface of said solar cell comprising: at least one thermal sensor; at least one power sensor; and apparatus for removing a specific solar cell when said specific solar cell has reached a predetermined level of degradation. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over (I) the combination of Vermeersch et al. (WO 2010/070621 Al2, pub. June 24, 2010) (“Vermeersch”), Adest (US 2008/0150366 Al, pub. June 26, 2008) and Stoeber et al. (US 2009/0182532 Al, pub. July 16, 2009) (“Stoeber”) and (II) the combination of Zhang et al. (US 7,962,249 Bl, iss. June 14, 2011) (“Zhang”), Adest and Stroeber. The dependent claims 4—7 and 9 are rejected as unpatentable over the previously 2 All discussion for this reference will be directed to U.S. Publication US 2012/0068547 Al which is utilized as an English language equivalent. 2 Appeal 2016-005602 Application 13/154,037 mentioned reference(s) alone or in combination with additional prior art. (Final Act. 3—21). OPINION3 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following. Appellants argue the combination of either Vermeersch or Zhang with Adest and Stoeber would not have suggested a system of photovoltaic module comprising solar cells each having its own discrete application specific integrated circuit chip (ASCI) control unit attached to the back surface of each individual solar cell as required by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 5 and 7)4. Appellants argue that Adest’s teaching of ASIC control unit chips for solar module systems is not suggestive of microelectronic ASIC control unit chips attached to the back of each solar cell in a module. {Id. at 6, 7). Appellants also argue that Stoeber’s teaching of attaching junction boxes to solar panels is not suggestive of microelectronic ASIC control unit chips attached to the back of each solar cell in a module. {Id.). 3 Appellants’ arguments addressing the combination of Zhang with Adest and Stoeber are substantially the same as those presented when addressing the combination of Vermeersch with Adest and Stoeber. (App. Br. 5—7). Appellants did not present substantial arguments addressing the dependent claims 2—7 and 9 and rely on the arguments presented for independent claim 1 for these claims. (App. Br. 8). Thus, we limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 4 Appellants’ principal brief is unnumbered. We will refer to the Appeal Brief as though it were consecutively numbered beginning with the title page “BRIEF ON APPEAL” as page 1. 3 Appeal 2016-005602 Application 13/154,037 Appellants’ arguments are without persuasive merit. The Examiner found both Vermeersch and Zhang teach a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of interconnected solar cells with a plurality of sensors for monitoring the operation of the solar cells. (Final Act. 3, 4, 12 and 13). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the control units could have been individually attached to the back of each solar cell module based on the cited art. Stoeber discloses the attachment of junction boxes comprising printed circuit boards having the function of monitoring modules to the back of individual solar cells. (Stoeber || 21— 23). Adest teaches that ASCI circuits are known to be suitable for monitoring the functions of solar modules. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that junction boxes which are attached to the back of the individual solar cells, such as described by Stoeber, could contain ASCI circuits for monitoring the functions of solar modules, such as described by Adest. The Examiner correctly took into account the teachings of Adest and Stoeber and the background knowledge of the ordinary artisan, particularly on monitoring systems for evaluating the performance of a photovoltaic module that comprises a plurality of solar cells in making the determination of obviousness. See KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 417, 418 (2007): Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. 4 Appeal 2016-005602 Application 13/154,037 A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to recognize the appropriate locations for attaching ASCI circuits for monitoring the functions of solar modules. Appellants have not directed us to evidence that establishes the location of the ASCI circuits for monitoring a plurality of solar cells produces unexpected results. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 4—7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons stated above and those presented by the Examiner. ORDER The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4—7 and 9—11 is affirmed. TIME PERIOD 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). AFFIRMED 5