Ex Parte Clerc et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2013

11312564 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SEBASTIAN CLERC and THIERRY DARGENT
____________________

Appeal 2011-011877
Application 11/312,564
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011877
Application 11/312,564

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A solar panel (3) for a spacecraft (1) the solar panel
having a front face (31) and a rear face (32), the front face
adapted for receiving solar radiation, characterized in that the
rear face (32) of the solar panel is covered with a coating (4),
the coating having negative electric charge emissive property so
that said coating causes expulsion of electrons from said rear
face to leave said rear face with a balance of positive charge.

REJECTIONS1
1. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Poturalski (US 6,394,395 B1; iss. May 28, 2002) and
Leinkram (US 3,871,902; iss. Mar. 18, 1975); and
2. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bodeau (US 6,260,808 B1; Jul. 17, 2001) and Leinkram.

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2011-011877
Application 11/312,564

3
OPINION
Obviousness – Poturalski/Leinkram
In the rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 10, the Examiner acknowledges
that Poturalski fails to disclose the coating on the solar panel having a
negative electric charge emissive property as required by claims 1, 6, and 10.
Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Leinkram teaches that white paints and
aluminum oxide are well known for use on solar panels and can also have
negative electric charge emissive properties. Id. (citing Leinkram, col. 1, ll.
50-51 and col. 2, ll. 52-66).
Appellants argue that Leinkram does not include any suggestion of
using a white paint or aluminum oxide material having negative electric
charge emissive properties. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. Appellants correctly
note that although Leinkram does discuss using a white paint, no further
information is provided in Leinkram regarding the specific type of white
paint. App. Br. 12 (citing Leinkram, col. 1, ll. 50-51); Reply Br. 4.
Leinkram’s discussion of white paint, as cited by the Examiner, is limited to
generally explaining that white paint has been used as a surface coating on
spacecraft and has been found to be unstable under solar radiation
adsorption. Leinkram, col. 1, ll. 47-52. The Examiner has not established
that the white paint discussed in Leinkram necessarily has any specific
negative electric charge emissive properties.
Appellants additionally explain that the reference to aluminum oxide
in Leinkram is for use as an abrasive during cleaning, not for use in a
coating as claimed. Reply Br. 5 (citing Leinkram, col. 2, ll. 55-60).
Leinkram’s discussion of aluminum oxide, as cited by the Examiner, simply
provides a method of coating the surface of a spacecraft with an aluminum
Appeal 2011-011877
Application 11/312,564

4
alloy including “clean[ing] the aluminum surface by use of a vapor
degreaser to remove organic stains, mechanically polish[ing] the cleaned
surface to a high gloss by use of aluminum oxide and a buffing wheel and
redegreas[ing].” Leinkram, col. 2, ll. 55-58. The Examiner has not
established that Leinkram teaches or suggests use of aluminum oxide as a
coating for a spacecraft.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, and
10 or dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 9 as unpatentable over Poturalski and
Leinkram.

Obviousness – Bodeau/Leinkram
In the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 10, the Examiner makes no specific
finding regarding Bodeau teaching a coating having a negative electric
charge emissive property. See Ans. 5. Instead, the Examiner simply
explains that “Bodeau et al mentions the use of aluminum or ‘an electrically
conductive composite material’ on the rear face as part of their system for
electrical grounding.” Id. (citing Bodeau, col. 5, ll. 1-32).
Appellants contend that Bodeau does not teach a coating having a
negative electric charge emissive property. Reply Br. 6. To the extent that
the Examiner is relying on Bodeau teaching the claimed coating, the
Examiner does not explain, and we do not see, where the cited portion of
Bodeau teaches such a coating on the rear face of the solar panel.
The Examiner additionally explains that Bodeau is silent regarding
use of aluminum oxide and again explains that Leinkram teaches that a
coating of aluminum oxide on a spacecraft is well known. Ans. 5. To the
extent the Examiner is again relying on Leinkram as teaching a coating
Appeal 2011-011877
Application 11/312,564

5
having a negative electric charge emissive property, similar to the finding in
the rejection based on the combination of Poturalski and Leinkram,
Appellants assert the same arguments presented above regarding Leinkram
failing to disclose this feature. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4-6. As noted above,
the Examiner has not established that Leinkram teaches or suggests a coating
having a negative electric charge emissive property.
For these reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6,
and 10 or dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 9 as unpatentable over Bodeau and
Leinkram.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, and 10
as unpatentable over Poturalski and Leinkram.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, and 10
as unpatentable over Bodeau and Leinkram.

REVERSED

Klh