Ex Parte SAIKI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2019

14578727 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/578,727 12/22/2014
126971 7590 03/18/2019
METROLEXIS LAW GROUP, PLLC - SONIC
900 17th Street, NW.
Suite 320
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shintaro SAIKI
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.
SAN.002.0238.NP 1078
EXAMINER
GOODWIN, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2817
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2019 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):
info@metrolexis.com
team-o@metrolexis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINT ARO SAIKI and ATS US HI SAITA
Appeal2018-006930
Application 14/578, 727
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1 and 3-7. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a method of manufacturing a solar cell module.
1 Appellant is the applicant, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Application Data Sheet
filed December 22, 2014, 4. According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in
interest is Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. Appeal
Brief filed November 16, 2017 ("App. Br."), 3.
Appeal2018-006930
Application 14/578,727
App. Br. 7. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight contested language:
1. A method of manufacturing a solar cell module, the
method comprising:
obtaining a stacked body by stacking sequentially a glass
plate, a transparent resin sheet, a solar cell, a colored resin
sheet, and a first resin sheet; and
pressing the stacked body under heat to fabricate the
solar cell module including
the glass plate,
a transparent sealing layer placed between the
glass plate and the solar cell and formed of the
transparent resin sheet,
a colored sealing layer placed between the first
resin sheet and the solar cell and formed of the colored
resin sheet, and
the first resin sheet, wherein
one of the transparent resin sheet and the colored resin
sheet is made of non-cross linked polyolefin and has a tan J of 1
or higher at a temperature of the pressing, and
the other one of the transparent resin sheet and the
colored resin sheet has a tan J of less than 1 at the temperature
of the pressing.
App. Br. 22 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered March 14, 2017 ("Final Act."), and maintains the rejections
in the Examiner's Answer entered April 27, 2018 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (US 6,414,236 Bl, issued July 2, 2002) in
view of Xia et al. (US 2013/0323521 Al, published December 5, 2013); and
2
Appeal2018-006930
Application 14/578,727
II. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kataoka
in view of Xia and Yuuki et al. (US 2011/0189807 Al, published August 4,
2011).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the
Appeal Brief and below.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising, in part, obtaining a stacked
body that includes a solar cell positioned between a transparent resin sheet
and a colored resin sheet, and pressing the stacked body under heat to
fabricate a solar cell module. Claim 1 requires one of the transparent resin
sheet and the colored resin sheet to have a tan 8 of 1 or higher at the
temperature used for pressing, and requires the other of the transparent resin
sheet and the colored resin sheet to have a tan 8 of less than 1 at the
temperature used for pressing.
The Examiner finds that Kataoka discloses sandwiching solar cell 101
between first resin sheet 104 and second resin sheet 102, and pressing or
crimping the sandwiched structure at elevated temperature to produce a solar
cell module. Ans. 2-3 (citing Kataoka col. 7, 11. 55-65; Fig. 1). The
Examiner finds that although Kataoka does not explicitly disclose the tan 8
of first resin sheet 104 and of second resin sheet 102, tan 8 "is an inherent
rheological property of viscoelectic materials" and "tan 8 values of less than
unity (one) indicate elastic-dominant (i.e. solid-like, hard) behavior and
values greater than unity (one) indicate viscous-dominant (i.e. liquid-like,
soft) behavior." Ans. 2--4.
3
Appeal2018-006930
Application 14/578,727
The Examiner finds that Kataoka discloses that "one of the resin
sheets is soft when the module is made (crimped)." Ans. 2 (citing Kataoka
col. 3, 11. 35-36; col. 4, 11. 25-30). The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of
Kataoka shows that resin sheet 102 "deforms and flows around the solar cell
in a liquid like manner and therefore accords with the descriptions of a
material having a tan 8 value greater than 1, while the other resin sheet ( 104)
does not deform or flow around the cell and is therefore behaving in a solid
like manner which accords with the definition of a material having a tan 8
value less than 1." Ans. 3--4. The Examiner finds that because "Kataoka
teaches the solar cell is sandwiched between layers of organic polymeric
resin and graphically shows one layer [102] flowed and the other layer [104]
did not flow around the cell," Kataoka inherently teaches that resin layers
102, 104 have tan 8 values of greater than 1 and less than 1, respectively, as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 4.
The Examiner, however, does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
establish that resin sheets 102, 104 disclosed in Kataoka inherently have tan
8 values as recited in claim 1 for reasons expressed by Appellant and
discussed below.
Kataoka discloses a solar cell module formed by positioning
photovoltaic element 101 between front surface sealing material 102 and
back surface sealing material 104, and applying pressure and heat ("thermal
crimping") to the structure. Col. 3, 11. 33-35; col. 5, 11. 42--46; col. 7, 1. 59-
col. 8, 1. 4; Fig. 1. As Appellant correctly argues (Reply Br. 13-14), the
portion of Kataoka cited by the Examiner as disclosing that "one of the resin
sheets is soft when the module is made ( crimped)" does not disclose that one
of front surface sealing material 102 and back surface sealing material 104 is
4
Appeal2018-006930
Application 14/578,727
"soft" when heat and pressure are applied to the materials to form a solar
cell module. Kataoka col. 3, 11. 35-36; col. 4, 11. 25-30. Rather, these
portions of Kataoka indicate that the sealing materials of Kataoka' s
invention are formed of organic polymeric resins comprising an ethylene-
unsaturated fatty acid ester-unsaturated fatty acid terpolymer as a main
component, and discuss the bicut softening point of the terpolymer. Id.
As Appellant also correctly argues (Reply Br. 15), Kataoka explicitly
discloses that "[i]n general, the same material is used for both the front
surface sealing material and the back surface sealing material" ( col. 10,
1. 66-col. 1, 1. 1 ), and the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in
Kataoka describing use of different materials for front surface sealing
material 102 and back surface sealing material 104. On this appeal record,
we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
different materials would need to be used for front 102 and back 104 sealing
materials in order for the materials to have different tan 8 values.
Although the Examiner asserts that Figure 1 of Kataoka shows that
sealing material 102 "deforms and flows" around photovoltaic element 101
"in a liquid like manner," and sealing material 104 "does not deform or
flow" around photovoltaic element 101, Figure 1 merely illustrates the
different layers of Kataoka' s photovoltaic module. We find no disclosure in
Kataoka that indicates, or would have suggested, that sealing material 102
"deforms and flows," while sealing material 104 "does not deform or flow,"
around photovoltaic element 101.
Accordingly, on this appeal record, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that front surface sealing material 102
and back surface sealing material 104 disclosed in Kataoka necessarily have
5
Appeal2018-006930
Application 14/578,727
tan 8 values of greater than 1, and less than 1, respectively, as recited in
claim 1. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.")
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1
and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
2 The Examiner does not rely on Xia and Yuuki for any disclosure that
remedies the deficiencies of Kataoka. Final Act. 3, 5; Ans. 5.
6