Ex Parte Gaudiana et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 20, 2012

11145333 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte RUSSELL GAUDIANA
and DANIEL PATRICK MCGAHN
________________

Appeal 2011-001591
Application 11/145,333
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 35-42, 44, 47, 48,
50, and 71. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 35 is illustrative:
35. A system, comprising:

a first photovoltaic cell; and

Appeal 2011-001591
Application 11/145,333

2
a second photovoltaic cell; wherein the first and second photovoltaic
cells are joined to each other only at one corner to provide relative rotational
freedom of the first and second photovoltaic cells.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 3):
Lidorenko 4,174,978 Nov. 20, 1979
Behrens 4,555,585 Nov. 26, 1985
Yamamoto 4,959,603 Sep. 25, 1990
Nakamura 6,291,763 B1 Sep. 18, 2001

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system comprising first
and second photovoltaic cells that are joined together only at one corner
such that relative rotational freedom is effected.
Claims 35, 39, and 71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Lidorenko. The appealed claims also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) Claim 36 over Lidorenko in view of Yamamoto,
(b) Claims 37, 38 and 40-42 over Lidorenko in view of Behrens, and
(c) Claims 44, 47, 48, and 50 over Lidorenko in view of Nakamura.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Appellants also do not set forth separate, substantive arguments
against the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 35.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
Appeal 2011-001591
Application 11/145,333

3
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Concerning the § 102 rejection over Lidorenko, there is no dispute
that Lidorenko describes a system comprising first and second photovoltaic
cells that are joined together only at one corner. Appellants, however, make
the following argument:
Thus, in the absence of additional information, one might
argue that the converters in the generator of Fig. 12 [of
Lidorenko] have relative rotational freedom. However, there is
additional information disclosed by Lidorenko that negates such
an argument. In particular, Lidorenko says that the generator of
Fig. 12 is fabricated the same was [sic, way] as the generator of
Figs. 1 and 2. See id., col. 11 lines 10-13. In Lidorenko’s
process for making the generator of Figs. 1 and 2, the
converters are soldered together. See id., col. 9, line 20-col. 10,
line 24. Accordingly, the converters in the generator of Figs. 1
and 2 do not have relative rotational freedom. As a result, the
converters in the generator of Fig. 12 also do not have relative
rotational freedom. In other words, when taken in the context
of Lidorenko’s disclosure, it is apparent that the angle β is
variable in the sense that different values for this angle may be
selected prior to fabricating a given generator. But, it is also
apparent that, after the generator is fabricated, the value of the
angle β cannot be changed.

App. Br. 3, first para.
The Examiner, on the other hand, relies upon Lidorenko’s express
teaching that after the sides of the array are trimmed to remove shunts, the
converters will be rotated through an angle β (col. 11, ll. 10-16). The
Examiner also maintains that Appellants’ argument that the rotation of
Lidorenko “‘occurs before/after the generators are formed’ is not present in
the claim, as acknowledged by the appellant” (Ans. 9, last sentence).
Appeal 2011-001591
Application 11/145,333

4
To be sure, Lidorenko does not provide a clear, explicit teaching of
whether the photovoltaic cell system depicted in Figure 12 provides relative
rotational freedom of the cells after formation. However, we fully concur
with the Examiner that appealed claim 1 is sufficiently broad to embrace an
intermediate or precursor system that provides relative rotational freedom.
Appellants acknowledge that the claim language does not explicitly recite
that the system is a final, working photovoltaic system. Appellants argue that
one skilled in the art would certainly understand that the systems covered by
the claims correspond to such, but fail to provide the requisite factual
support.
In our view, claim 35 on appeal encompasses intermediate and final
systems, and Lidorenko describes a system that corresponds to such an
intermediate system. Significantly, Appellants point to no definition in the
present Specification which would require claim 35 to be interpreted as
being limited to a finally formed system. Moreover, the claim does not
exclude a formed system wherein heat is applied to enable relative rotational
freedom, as would be the case for Lidorenko’s system if we adopt
Appellants’ argument. In other words, even if Appellants’ interpretation of
Lidorenko is correct, Lidorenko describes a system that may be provided
with relative rotational freedom upon heating the solder, which is not
precluded by the language of claim 35.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-001591
Application 11/145,333

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(v).
AFFIRMED

ssl