Ex Parte Syed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12817703 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/817,703 06/17/2010
28395 7590 04/28/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fazal Urrahman Syed
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.
81205117 6105
EXAMINER
BERHANU, SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte F AZAL URRAHMAN SYED,
VENKATAPATHI RAJUNALLAPA,
SHAILESH SHRIKANT KOZAREKAR,
MICHAEL EDWARD LOFTUS, SHANE SCHULZE,
ROBERT K. TAENAKA, DONALD CHARLES FRANKS,
MING LANG KUANG, and VENKATESWA ANAND SANKARAN
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817, 7 03
Technology Center 2800
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. See App. Br. 2--4. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This application was made special under the Green Technology Pilot
Program. See Mar. 29, 2011, Decision on Petition to Make Special Under
the Green Technology Pilot Program. This application was appealed
previously. We affirmed in part rejections and issued a new ground of
rejection. See Ex parte Syed, Decision on Appeal No. 2013-001699 (PTAB
Dec. 12, 2012) ("1699 Dec."). Subsequently, Appellants amended claim 1,
for example, to recite
a solar panel array including a number of solar cells arranged to
have an output voltage of at least 200 volts at a standard solar
irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2, wherein the number is
based on the voltage of the traction battery at the particular state
of charge and wherein an area of each of the cells is based on
the number and a target maximum power for the cell.
Independent claims 8 and 15 include similar recitations. The instant appeal
is from the December 13; 2013; Final Office Action ("Final Act.").
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to solar panel arrays on alternatively
powered vehicles. See, e.g., Spec. 1:33-2:7; 3:10-18. The Specification
states that the solar panel array of a vehicle typically is connected to the
battery through the same connectors (main connectors) used to connect the
battery to the motor. According to the Specification, these connectors
typically handle large currents and, thus, take a substantial amount of
energy, relative to that generated by the panels, to close. Id. at 3:3-18. The
Specification describes the claimed invention as using a separate set of
smaller switches to connect the panel array to the battery, for example
2
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
switches that handle less than 5 A and need less than 1 W of power to close.
Id. at 3:30-4:6, 10:25-11:4.
According to the Specification, solar cells used in vehicles typically
are low voltage, requiring a DC/DC boost converter to bring the voltage to
the level of the vehicle's battery. Id. at 2:22-27. In contrast, the
Specification describes the claimed invention as including an array of solar
panels with an output voltage of at least 200 V at a standard solar irradiance
of 1000 W/m2, which the Specification states is sufficient to trickle charge
the vehicle's battery without a need for a DC/DC boost converter. Id. at
3:21-27, 5:3-16. The Specification states that this arrangement permits the
solar panel array to be connected directly to the battery. Id. at 5: 13-16.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A vehicle comprising:
an electric machine;
a traction battery including positive and negative end
terminals having a voltage of at least 200 volts thereacross at a
particular state of charge and configured to provide energy to
the electric machine;
a solar panel array including a number of solar cells
arranged to have an output voltage of at least 200 volts at a
standard solar irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2, wherein the
number is based on the voltage of the traction battery at the
particular state of charge and wherein an area of each of the
cells is based on the number and a target maximum power for
the cell; and
first and second switches each having a maximum
current carrying capability less than 5 Amps, wherein the first
switch is electrically connected between the solar panel array
and the positive end terminal and the second switch is
electrically connected between the solar panel array and the
negative end terminal such that the switches, when closed,
3
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
electrically connect the solar panel array to the traction battery
to trickle charge the traction battery without a boost converter.
THE REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Aguilar us 5,353,006 Oct. 4, 1994
Takehara us 5,669,987 Sept. 23, 1997
Ward US 2008/0143292 Al June 19, 2008
Klein US 2008/0236648 Al Oct. 2, 2008
Sato US 2009/0001926 Al Jan. 1, 2009
Ng US 2010/0127568 Al May 27, 2010
Claims 1and5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ward, Ng, and Takehara. See Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ward, Ng, Takehara, and Klein. See Final Act. 5-6.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ward, Ng, and Takehara. See Final Act. 6-8.
Claims 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ward, Ng, Takehara, and Klein. See Final Act. 8-9.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sato, Ng, and Takehara. See Final Act. 9-11.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sato, Ng, Takehara, and Aguilar. See Final Act. 11.
4
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
ISSUES
Appellants direct their arguments to claim 1, and only nominally
argue claims 3-9, 10-15, and 17 separately. See App. Br. 3--4. The primary
issue is whether the cited prior art teaches
a solar panel array including a number of solar cells arranged to
have an output voltage of at least 200 volts at a standard solar
irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2, wherein the number is
based on the voltage of the traction battery at the particular state
of charge and wherein an area of each of the cells is based on
the number and a target maximum power for the cell,
as recited in claim 1 and, similarly, in independent claims 8 and 15.
The Examiner rejected independent claim 15 based on Sato and Ng
using rationale similar to that used in rejecting claim 1. Appellants contend
that claim 15 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 1, but do not address
Sato specifically. See App. Br. 3. Accordingly, for claim 15, the issue is
whether Appellants' reference to their arguments regarding claim 1 (which
focus on Ward and Ng) is sufficient to show error in the Examiner's
conclusion that claim 15 is obvious over Sato, Ng, and Takehara.
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1AND5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Ward describes a hybrid vehicle that incorporates a solar panel into its
moon roof or truck bed cover. Ward, Abstract, Figs. 1--4. Ward describes
hybrid vehicle systems that typically operate with high-voltage batteries on
the order of 300 V, but with low-voltage solar cells that cannot generate a
voltage that high. Ward i-f 7. To accommodate, Ward describes either using
a DC-DC converter to raise the voltage or using a series charger that charges
battery cells one at a time. Id. at i-fi-17, 69-77, Figs. 12-13.
5
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
Ng describes a power switch array, with adjustable current rating
power switches, for use in applications such as universal serial bus ("USB")
ports, Firewire ports, and memory card slots. Ng, Abstract, ,-r 2. In one
example, if a device attempts to draw more current than 1.5 A, a power
switch turns off. Id. ,-r 7.
Takehara describes a technique for detecting defective photoelectric
conversion elements in an array of solar panels. Takehara, Abstract. In one
example, a number of solar cells is connected in series to generate "200 V in
a system having an output of 3kW for household applications; and about 300
to 350 Vin a large-scale system having an output of lOkW or more." Id. at
3:63--4:6; see also id. at 6:32-38 (a panel on a house, with ten solar strings,
each constituted by 14 solar cell modules, with output voltage of 200 V and
3 kW). Takehara describes driving loads such as "a motor, a light source
such as a lamp, or a heat source such as a laser. More specifically, an air
conditioner or the like as an indoor load 3 is exemplified." Id. at 4:42--45.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ward discloses a vehicle
comprising an electric machine 40, a traction battery 42 having a voltage of
at least 200 V, a solar panel array 50, and first and second switches 841, 842,
connected between the solar panel array and the traction battery's terminals.
See Final Act. 3 (citing Ward, Figs. 11, 13, i-fi-17, 61, 76). The Examiner
concedes that Ward does not teach the switches having maximum carrying
capacity less than 5 A. Id.
The Examiner finds that Ng discloses switches with current carrying
capabilities less than 5 Amps and concludes that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have used a switch with such a current rating in Ward "in order
to ensure that excessive current capable of damaging the system is not drawn
6
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
or discharged by the system." Final Act. 4. The Examiner made this finding
previously in the final office action from which Appeal No. 2013-001699
was taken. 1699 Dec. 4. In that matter, we determined that the Examiner
presented insufficient evidence to support that finding. Id. at 5-6. The
Examiner has presented no more evidence in support of this finding in the
instant Final Office Action. Accordingly, this reason to combine the
teachings of Ward and Ng is still unpersuasive.
Nevertheless, in the 1699 Decision, at 10, in the new ground of
rejection, we explained that
[s]ince Ward's switch 841 is expected to carry low current, it
would have been an obvious matter of design choice, requiring
no more than ordinary skill, to select a switch with low
maximum current carrying capabilities (e.g., below 5A) or low
maximum holding power (e.g., below 1 Watt) to accommodate
the expected low current.
The Examiner also echoes this reasoning in the Final Office Action, at 4.
We maintain that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
select a switch sized appropriately for the amount of current it is expected to
carry.
Next, the Examiner finds that Takehara teaches
solar cells arranged to have an output voltage of at least 200
volts [see column 6, lines 32--46] at a standard solar irradiance
of 1,000 watts per meter[2], wherein the number is based on the
voltage of the traction battery at the particular state of charge
and wherein an area of each of the cells is based on the number
and a target maximum power for the cell.
Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to use
such a solar cell, as taught in Takehara, in Ward's vehicle "in order to
provide desire[d] voltage for the rechargeable battery to extend battery life."
7
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
Id. The Examiner further finds that determining an optimum voltage for a
plurality of solar cells would have involved only routine skill. Id.
Appellants argue that Takehara does not teach an area of each of its
cells and, thus, does not teach "wherein an area of each of the cells is based
on the number and a target maximum power for the cell," as recited in claim
1. App. Br. 3. Appellants point out the difference in constraints between
solar panels mounted on a vehicle, as in Ward, and mounted on a house, as
in Takehara. Id. Specially, Appellants argue:
Id.
Although Takehara may have suggested that if enough of
Ward's cells were connected together an output of at least 200
volts may be achieved, one of ordinary skill would not have
considered such to be practical because a given vehicle would
lack sufficient mounting surfaces to install the number of cells
required.
In response, the Examiner states that he "is relying on the teaching of
Takehara to show that a plurality of solar panels connected in series or
parallel can output 200V s based on standard solar irradiance, not the size of
the solar panels of Takehara" and finds that "[r]educing the size of the solar
panels, while maintaining output happens constantly as technology
improves." Ans. 3. The Examiner argues that "appellant does not appear to
have invented or introduced new materials or used new chemical elements to
develop solar panels that output a particular output voltage within any given
area." Id. at 4. Thus, the Examiner concludes, the claimed configuration
would have been merely a design choice and that "[ d]esigning solar cells to
cover a particular area or having particular shapes and surface areas require
a normal artisan to improve upon what was already generally known in the
art." Id. at 3.
8
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not cited a reference
to show the use, on automotive vehicles, of solar cells having an output
voltage of at least 200 Vat a standard solar irradiance of 1,000 watts per
meter2. Reply 2-3. According to Appellants, the Examiner's finding that a
skilled artisan would have reduced the size of solar panels for automotive
use is driven by hindsight. Id.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not cite to evidence
showing a solar panel array arranged to have an output voltage of at least
200 V at a standard solar irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2 in any context.
The Final Office Action cites Takehara for such disclosure. Final Act. 5.
Although Takehara teaches an output of 200 V, it is silent as to the area of
the cells.
The Examiner appears to acknowledge this, arguing in the Answer
that Takehara is cited only for an output voltage of 200 V, and that designing
cells to fit a certain area would have been merely a design choice. Ans. 3.
The Examiner does not support this finding with evidence. "[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn,
441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); accord Alza Corp. v. Mylan
Laboratories, Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[L]egal
determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations generally,
should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or
conjecture."). We are persuaded that the Examiner fails to present sufficient
evidence to support the conclusion that a skilled artisan would have
optimized Takehara's solar cells, designed to be mounted on a residential
9
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
building, for use on an automobile. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that
the prior art teaches
a solar panel array including a number of solar cells arranged to
have an output voltage of at least 200 volts at a standard solar
irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2, ... wherein an area of
each of the cells is based on the number and a target maximum
power for the cell,
as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, on the current record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, or claim 5, which depends from claim 1.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 depend from claim 1. The newly cited reference,
Klein, has not been cited to cure the above-noted deficiency. See Final Act.
5---6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 for
the reasons given above for claim 1.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 8 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 8 is similar to claim 1, although it recites first and second
switches "being configured to close when activated by no more than 1 watt
maximum holding power" rather than switches with a maximum current
carrying capability less than 5 A. As with claim 1, the Examiner cites
Takehara for a teaching of solar cells arranged to have an output of at least
200 V at a standard solar irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2 and concludes
that a skilled artisan would have incorporated such solar cells for reasons
that track those given for claim 1. Final Act. 7-8.
10
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's responses to those
arguments are grouped together with those for claim 1. App. Br. 4; Ans. 2-
4; Reply 2-3.
For the reasons given for claim 1, the Examiner has not shown that the
prior art teaches
a solar panel array including a number of solar cells arranged to
have an output voltage of at least 200 volts at a standard solar
irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2, ... wherein an area of
each of the cells is based on the number and a target maximum
power for the cell,
as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 8.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10-14 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 10-14 depend from claim 8. Klein has not been cited to cure
the above-noted deficiency. See Final Act. 8-9. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 10-14 for the reasons given above for claim 8.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 15 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1. The Examiner
cites Sato, a published application directed to an electric vehicle with solar
power, for those aspects that, for claim 1, he cited Ward. See Final Act. 9-
10. As with claim 1, the Examiner cites Takehara as teaching a solar panel
array including a number of solar cells
arranged to have an output voltage of at least 200 volts at a
standard solar irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter[2], wherein
the number is based on the voltage of the traction battery at the
particular state of charge and wherein an area of each of the
11
Appeal2014-009699
Application 12/817,7 03
cells is based on the number and a target maximum power for
the cell.
Id. at 10 (internal citation omitted).
Although Appellants do not address claim 15, or Sato's applicability,
separately, we are persuaded, for the reasons given for claim 1, that the
Examiner has not shown that the prior art teaches
a solar panel array including a number of solar cells arranged to
have an output voltage of at least 200 volts at a standard solar
irradiance of 1,000 watts per meter2 electrically connected with
the output terminals, . . . wherein an area of each of the cells is
based on the number and a target maximum power for the cell,
as recited in claim 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 15.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 17 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 1 7 depends from claim 15. Aguilar has not been cited to cure
the above-noted deficiency. See Final Act. 11. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 17 for the reasons given above for claim 15.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17 is
reversed.
REVERSED
12