Ex Parte Clark

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

13169445 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/169,445 06/27/2011
22879 7590 05/27/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephan R. Clark
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.
82662264 1974
EXAMINER
HORTON, DUJUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHAN R. CLARK
Appeal2014-005942
Application 13/169,445
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
8-12. Claims 1-7 and 13-15 have been withdrawn from consideration by the
Examiner as drawn to a separate, non-elected invention (Final Act. 2). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant's invention is directed to an apparatus for use with solar
energy that comprising a curved surface 202 that includes support ribs (e.g.,
transverse support rib 206) extending away from a backside such that a
monolithic structure is defined (Spec. i-f 12, 26-28; Fig. 2; claim 8). A
Appeal2014-005942
Application 13/169,445
separate curved reflector surface 212 is spaced apart from the backside of
curved surface 202 (Spec. i-f 12, 28, Fig. 2; claim 8).
Claim 8 is illustrative:
8. A solar energy device, comprising:
a first photovoltaic cell and a second photovoltaic cell each configured
to convert photonic energy into electrical energy;
a transparent material formed to define a first parabolic surface and
stiffening support ribs extending away there from, the first parabolic surface
bearing a dichroic surface treatment to concentrate a first spectral band of
photonic energies onto the first photovoltaic cell, the first
parabolic surface and the stiffening support ribs forming a monolithic
structure; and
a material formed to define a second parabolic surface spaced apart
from a backside of the first parabolic surface, the second parabolic surface
bearing a reflective surface treatment to concentrate a second spectral band
of photonic energies onto the second photovoltaic cell.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cobb
(US 2007/0137691 Al published June 21, 2007) in view of Zahuranec (US
2010/0006139 Al published January 14, 2010).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner's findings are located on pages 2-5 of the Answer. The
Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Cobb teaches all the limitations recited
in claim 8, except for the stiffening support ribs extending away from the
first parabolic surface (Ans. 2-3). The Examiner finds that Zahuranec
teaches in Figure 2 a parabolic reflector comprising support ribs of a plastic
material wherein the parabolic surface and the support ribs form a
monolithic structure (Ans. 3). The Examiner interprets "monolithic
2
Appeal2014-005942
Application 13/169,445
structure" in the claim as merely requiring "a structure consisting of a single
unit as defined by Webster dictionary." Id. The Examiner finds that
Zahuranec' s parabolic surface 205 and support ribs 215 consists of a single
unit. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to form
the first parabolic surface 32 of Cobb with the support ribs 215 of Zahuranec
extending away from the first parabolic surface 32 to provide the parabolic
surface of Cobb an adequate parabolic profile as taught by Zahuranec (Ans.
3).
Appellant argues that neither Cobb nor Zahuranec teaches that the ribs
and first parabolic surface are made of transparent material and form a
monolithic structure as that term is construed in light of the Specification
(App. Br. 4-9; Reply Br. 2-3).
The Examiner finds that the claim recitation "a transparent material
formed to define a first parabolic surface and stiffening support ribs
extending away there from ... the first parabolic surface and the stiffening
support ribs forming a monolithic structure" does not require that the ribs be
made of transparent material (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner further finds that the
monolithic structure recited in claim 8 is understood to require a parabolic
structure with support ribs that stiffen and maintain the surface curvature as
disclosed in paragraph 77 of the Specification (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds
that the monolithic structure required by claim 8 is satisfied by Zahuranec' s
parabolic surface with ribs attached thereto, which form a single operating
device (Ans. 7).
We begin our analysis by construing the claim 8 phrase "a transparent
material formed to define a first parabolic surface and stiffening support ribs
extending away there from ... the first parabolic surface and the stiffening
3
Appeal2014-005942
Application 13/169,445
support ribs forming a monolithic structure." The Specification at paragraph
18 discloses:
The curved surface 102 and the support ribs 104-116 are formed as
respective portions of the same continuous material such that a
homogeneous (or monolithic) stn1cture 118 is defined.
The Specification at paragraph 12 recites:
A curved surface includes integral support ribs extending away from a
backside such that a monolithic structure is defined.
The Specification at paragraph 27 discloses:
The transparent material defining the curved surface 202 also defines
a transverse support rib 206 .... The material defining the curved
surface 202 further defines a side support rib 208.
These Specification disclosures support Appellant's position that claim 8
phrase "a transparent material formed to define a first parabolic surface and
stiffening support ribs extending away there from" requires that the
stiffening support ribs are made from the same transparent material as the
curved surface. The Examiner's interpretation of the claim as not requiring
the stiffening support ribs be made of the same transparent material as the
curved surface is contrary to the plain meaning of the claim language and as
that claim language is interpreted in light of the Specification.
Regarding the claim phrase "the first parabolic surface and the
stiffening support ribs forming a monolithic structure" the Examiner's
interpretation as merely requiring a unified structure is not reasonable when
interpreted in light of the Specification. Rather, the Specification disclosure
at paragraphs 18 and 27 noted supra describes that in a monolithic structure
as described in the Specification and recited in the claims the same material
is used to form the stiffening ribs and the curved parabolic surface. The
4
Appeal2014-005942
Application 13/169,445
portion of the Specification relied upon by the Examiner (i.e., paragraph 77)
discloses that the plastic used to form the light concentrator (i.e., the curved
parabolic structure) is injection molded to form a monolithic structure
defined by a curved surface and a plurality of support ribs. The
Specification at paragraph 46, like paragraph 77, describes that a curved
surface with a stiffening support ribs of the light concentrator 402 are
portions of a monolithic structure formed by injection molding.
In light of these disclosures, we construe "monolithic structure" as a
single, unitary structure where the supporting ribs and curved surface are
formed as respective portions of the same continuous, transparent material.
It follows that Zahuranec's separately formed ribs 215 and reflector 205
which are then clamped together do not constitute a "monolithic structure"
within the meaning of the claims. The Examiner does not expound upon the
statement that it would have been obvious "to form the first parabolic
surface [32] of Cobb with the support ribs of Zahuranec extending away
from the first parabolic surface [32] to provide the parabolic surface of Cobb
an adequate parabolic provide (Zahuranec, i-f 0041-0042)." (Ans. 3). We
understand the Examiner to be stating that it would have been obvious to use
Zahuranec' s support ribs 215 to support Cobb's parabolic surface by
separately providing the support ribs as taught by Zahuranec. Our
understanding is supported by the Examiner's further analysis on pages 6 to
7 of the Answer. The Examiner does not make any findings regarding
whether Zahuranec would have suggested modifying Cobb to make the ribs
integral with, and of the same transparent material as, the parabolic surface.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection.
5
Appeal2014-005942
Application 13/169,445
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
6