Ex Parte Storbeck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 2017

13326364 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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. 13/326,364 12/15/2011 Olaf Storbeck P48720US 1585 68029 7590 01/18/2017 VIERING, JENTSCHURA & PARTNER mbB - sonstige c/o 3770 HIGHLAND AVE. SUITE 203 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 EXAMINER CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1756 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/18/2017 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): patint@vjp.de VJP-US @ VJP.DE PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLAF STORBECK and HARALD HAHN Appeal 2015-007814 Application 13/326,364 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, GEORGE C. BEST, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-007814 Application 13/326,364 Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1—10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Amick (US 4,301,322, iss. Nov. 17, 1981). App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The invention relates to a tabbing ribbon for use in providing an electrical connection between one or more solar cells. See Specification filed Dec. 15, 2011 (“Spec.”) 13. Of the appealed claims, claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. A tabbing ribbon for connecting to at least one solar cell, wherein at least a portion of the tabbing ribbon comprises a non- planar section; wherein the non-planar section comprises lower portions and higher portions; wherein the lower portions are configured to contact with a surface of the at least one solar cell; and wherein the shape axis of the non-planar section is different from 90° angle to a main extension of the tabbing ribbon for reflecting light from the tabbing ribbon via total reflection at a cover plane of a solar panel comprising the solar cell, to the solar cell. Corrected Claims App’x, filed December 10, 2014. Appellants contend the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Amick describes a tabbing ribbon comprising a non-planar section having a “shape axis . . . different from 90° angle to a main extension of the tabbing ribbon for reflecting light from the tabbing ribbon via total reflection at a cover plane of a solar panel 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Solar World Innovations, GMBH. Appeal Brief filed Nov. 4, 2014 (“App. Br.”), 2. 2 Final Office Action mailed June 6, 2014 (“Final Act.”). 2 Appeal 2015-007814 Application 13/326,364 comprising the solar cell, to the solar cell,” as recited in appealed claims 1 and 8. See App. Br. 11 (§ A.2).3 4 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner relies, very generally, on the figures in Amick for a description of this feature, finding Amick Figure 1 A, in particular, illustrates corrugations at an angle different from 90 degrees. Final Act. 2. In the Answer, the Examiner provides a more detailed explanation of the rejection. See Ans. 4—5. The Examiner makes a side-by-side comparison of Figure 9 of the present application and Figure 5 of Amick, each of which is a side cross-sectional view taken along the main extension of the tabbing ribbon, contending the angle by which the tabbing ribbon rises relative to the surface of the solar cell in Amick must be different from 90 degrees (as recited in appealed claims 1 and 8), because Appellants’ and Amick’s tabbing ribbons have the same orientation. Id. at 5; see also id. at 4 (explaining that nonplanar corrugations 13 are at a non-90 degree angle relative to horizontally extending (planar) portion 26). In their Reply Brief (filed Aug. 26, 2015 (“Reply Br.”)), Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection is based on an erroneous interpretation of the above- quoted limitation in claims 1 and 8. See Reply Br. 2—A. Appellants contend the argued limitation is shown in Figure 8 A, which is a top view of the tabbing ribbon, and direct us to paragraphs 40-44 of the Specification for a description of the feature of “the shape axis of the non-planar section” (claims 1 and 8). Reply Br. 3^4.4 Based on our review of the claims and Specification, we agree with Appellants (see Reply Br. 3) that the shape axis is described mostly clearly in the 3 Page numbering was not provided in the Appeal Brief, as filed. 4 Paragraphs 40-44 correspond to paragraphs 54—58 of the published application (US 2012/0152304), which is cited by Appellants in the Reply Brief. 3 Appeal 2015-007814 Application 13/326,364 Specification’s discussion of Figure 8, more specifically Figure 8A, which is described as showing the shape axis at a tilt angle a. Spec. 140. The Specification also discloses that in one embodiment, tilt angle a is “determined in accordance with a > arcsin [^-j, wherein b denotes the width 806 of the tabbing ribbon 800, and wherein d denotes the distance between the surface of a solar cell connected to the tabbing ribbon and the cover plane of the solar panel including the solar cell with the tabbing ribbon 800.” (Spec. 140; see id. Figs. 8A, 8B; see also Claims Appx., claim 5 (reciting this particular embodiment)). The Examiner finds the claim limitation “wherein the shape axis of the non- planar section is different from 90° angle to a main extension of the tabbing ribbon” is met by Amick’s tabbing ribbon because the angle at which it rises relative to the surface of the solar cell is different from 90 degrees, as depicted in Amick’s Figure 5 cross-sectional view taken along the main extension of the tabbing ribbon (see Amick Fig. 5; 3:64—65). Ans. 5. The angle in Amick referenced by the Examiner, however, is different than tilt angle a as described in the Specification. Compare Spec. 138 (describing the angle formed between the surfaces of the solar cell and the tabbing ribbon as shown in a cross-sectional view taken along the main extension of the tabbing ribbon) with Spec. 40, 45 (describing the tilt angle of the shape axis relative to the main extension with reference to a top view of the tabbing ribbon). The Examiner has not made a finding that the non-planar section of Amick’s tabbing ribbon has a tilt angle, i.e., the angle formed by the shape axis of the non-planar section relative to the main extension of the tabbing ribbon, that is different from 90°, as required by the appealed claims. In sum, Appellants have argued persuasively that the Examiner failed to identity in Amick a teaching of a tabbing ribbon comprising a non-planar section 4 Appeal 2015-007814 Application 13/326,364 having a “shape axis . . . different from 90° angle to a main extension of the tabbing ribbon,” as required by independent claims 1 and 8. See Reply Br. 4—5; see also id. at 5—6 (providing a discussion of the Examiner’s error in connection with the embodiment recited in claim 5, wherein tilt angle a is “determined in accordance with a > arcsin (claim 5; Spec. 140)). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Amick. REVERSED 5