Ex Parte Gil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13376482 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/376,482 03/16/2012 Ori Gil 2009P24052WOUS 5664
22116 7590 02/02/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ORI GIL, SHMULIK KLAPWALD, NAIM LEVI,
and YIGAL SHARON
Appeal 2015-001986
Application 13/376,482
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-001986
Application 13/376,482
STATEMENT OF CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 8—11, 14, 15, and 18. Claims 1—7, 12, 13, 16, and 17
were previously canceled. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claims are directed generally to “a solar field and a
method for assembling the solar field.” Spec. p. 1,11. 7—8. Claim 8,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
8. A method for automatically assembling a solar field, the
method comprising:
a) providing at least one solar collector unit with a
radiation concentrator collector comprising a radiation absorber
with an absorber tube for a flow-through of a heat transfer
medium and a parabolic mirror for focusing solar radiation onto
the absorber tube of the radiation absorber for heating up the heat
transfer medium flowing through the absorber tube;
b) transporting the solar collector unit to a target location
of the solar field;
c) assembling the solar collector unit on the target location
of the solar field; and
d) checking of the solar collector unit before the
transporting the solar collector unit to the target location, wherein
the checking the solar collector unit includes:
measuring an absorptivity of the absorber tube
and/or
measuring a reflectivity of the parabolic mirror.
2
Appeal 2015-001986
Application 13/376,482
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 8—11, 14, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Margankunte, Askins, and Ulrich. Ans. 3.
The Appellants argue the claims subject to the rejection as a group.
We select claim 8 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2011).
Accordingly, the claims stand or fall with our disposition of claim 8.
In this regard, the Appellants assert that Margankunte is silent with
respect to the location of assembly and therefore “clearly [does] not teach or
suggest assembling the solar units at the target location.” App. Br. 5. While
this may be true, it is not dispositive. As the Examiner correctly points out,
“silence on the part of Margankunte with respect to the assembly location
implies that the location used for assembly is a non-critical choice.” Ans. 6.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that absent “an express teaching
away from on-site or target location assembly, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art [at the time of the invention] to follow
the assembly instructions provided/disclosed by Margankunkte [sic] at a
target location.” Ans. 7. Accordingly, the Examiner does not assert that
Margankunte teaches or suggests assembly at the location as argued by the
Ulrich
Askins
Margankunte
US 4,484,819 Nov. 27, 1984
US 2009/0261802 A1 Oct. 22, 2009
US 2011/0220096 A1 Sep. 15,2011
REJECTION
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2015-001986
Application 13/376,482
Appellants, but that one of ordinary skill in the art, given the lack of
criticality of assembly location, would have known that the device could be
assembled on site. We agree with the Examiner and are not persuaded of
error.
The Appellants next assert that Askins and Ulrich are non-analogous
art solely because they are classified in different technical areas. App. Br. 5.
This argument, however, ignores the second prong of the test that the art be
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was
concerned. As the Examiner states, “Ulrich is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, namely
measuring reflectivity and absorptivity of different surfaces or materials.”
Ans. 7.
The Appellants further argue that the combination of Ulrich with
Margankunte and Askins would not arrive at the claimed invention because
Ulrich does not teach or suggest measuring of the specific apparatus
elements claimed. See App. Br. 5—6. We agree with the Examiner,
however, that Appellants’ argument essentially would be “that one skilled in
the art would not have found it obvious to use a device that test[s]
reflectivity and absorptivity {i.e., Ulrich) on an apparatus whose primary
function is to reflect and absorb light {i.e., Margankunte).” Ans. 8. In other
words, the Examiner’s finding is merely that when used together, Ulrich’s
testing device would test the reflectivity and absorptivity of Margankunte’s
apparatus as claimed.
The Examiner is also correct in that the rejection is not one of
anticipation, but of obviousness and that the proper inquiry “is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 8. Here, the combination is to use a testing
4
Appeal 2015-001986
Application 13/376,482
device that tests the claimed characteristics generally as in Ulrich on the
specific device in Margankunte. Therefore, Margankunte provides the
specific elements and Ulrich the device and method for testing. We see no
error in the Examiner’s combination of these two teachings to arrive at the
claimed subject matter.
Lastly, with specific reference to Askins, we agree with the Examiner
that Askins properly teaches “checking the solar collector unit before
transporting the solar unit to the target location.” Ans. 5 (citing Askins 14).
As with Ulrich, Askins is properly used in the rejection because “Askins is
both in the field of Appellants’ endeavor.. .and reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (i.e., the testing
of solar energy collecting devices in a controlled environment).'1'’ Ans. 7. As
such, were are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of the
claims over the combination of Margankunte, Ulrich, and Askins.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 8—11, 14, 15, and 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
5