Ex Parte Haddock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2018

12855850 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/855,850 08/13/2010
25231 7590 05/10/2018
Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP
8055 East Tufts A venue, Suite 450
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert M. M. Haddock
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.
50200-00091 1830
EXAMINER
SADLON, JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2018 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):
ptomail@mfblaw.com
ptomail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT M. M. HADDOCK and
DUSTIN MARSHALL MARSTON HADDOCK1
Appeal2017-006035
Application 12/855,850
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is RMH Tech, LLC/Metal
Roof Innovations, Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-006035
Application 12/855,850
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-8, and 44--48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a photovoltaic module mounting assembly.
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A photovoltaic system, comprising:
a building surface;
a plurality of mounting assemblies
comprising a first mounting assembly, wherein each
said mounting assembly comprises:
a mounting device mounted to said
building surface;
a mounting plate positioned on said
mounting device, wherein an upper surface of
said mounting plate comprises a raised structure
comprising an outer perimeter, wherein said
mounting plate extends beyond an outer
perimeter of said mounting device, and wherein
there is an open space directly below where said
mounting plate extends beyond said outer
perimeter of said mounting device;
a clamping member comprising first
and second clamping legs; and
a threaded clamp fastener that extends
through said clamping member, through said
mounting plate, and that is secured to said
mounting device; and
first and second photovoltaic modules
positioned on said upper surface of said mounting
plate of said first mounting assembly in at least
adjacent relation to oppositely disposed portions on
said outer perimeter of said raised structure, with said
2
Appeal2017-006035
Application 12/855,850
Bott
Haddock
first and second photovoltaic modules being
supported by said mounting plate, and with said first
and second photovoltaic modules being spaced from
said building surface, wherein said first and second
photovoltaic modules are spaced from one another
and said clamping member is disposed between said
first and second photovoltaic modules, wherein said
first photovoltaic module is disposed in a direction of
increasing elevation of said building surface relative
to said second photovoltaic module, wherein said
first photovoltaic module is secured between said
first clamping leg of said first mounting assembly
and said mounting plate of said first mounting
assembly, and wherein said second photovoltaic
module is secured between said second clamping leg
of said first mounting assembly and said mounting
plate of said first mounting assembly.
REFERENCES
us 4,162,755
US 2008/0302928 Al
REJECTION
July31, 1979
Dec. 11, 2008
Claims 1, 3-8, and 44--48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haddock and Bott. Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a photovoltaic module mounting assembly
comprising a mounting plate, the upper surface of the mounting plate having
a "raised structure" with an outer perimeter. App. Br. 18 (Claims App.).
The Specification explains that the raised structure serves as a "positional
registrant" that helps align photovoltaic modules relative the mounting plate
during installation. Spec 6:3-13. The Examiner acknowledges that
Haddock's mounting plate 110 does not have the claimed raised structure,
3
Appeal2017-006035
Application 12/855,850
but finds that one of ordinary skill would have added threaded central
portion 82 on Bott's mounting plate 82 to Haddock's mounting plate. Final
Act. 4 (citing Haddock, Fig. 7 A; Bott, Fig. 2). According to the Examiner it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art "to modify the
mounting plate of Haddock by including the central portion as taught by
Bott for the purpose of providing reinforcing to the mounting plate." Id. at
5. Relying on Figure 7 A of Haddock, the Examiner explains that "the
mounting plate would be subjected to stress at least from the initial fastening
of nut 128 and the force exerted by legs 146 onto frames 62 bearing down
upon the plate 110," and the "plurality of frames fastened upon plate 110
would exert stress on the plate and therefore a skilled artisan would seek to
reinforce the plate to enhance durability." Ans. 10-11.
Appellants dispute that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
incorporated Bott's central portion 82 onto the upper surface of Haddock's
mounting plate 110. In particular, Appellants point out that Haddock's
mounting plate is subject to stress over its entire surface, and "[i]f the
Examiner's logic regarding structural reinforcement was followed, the
thickness of the entire mounting plate 110 of Haddock would be increased to
accommodate the loads being exerted on the mounting plate." Reply Br. 4--
5. We agree. As is evident from Haddock Figures 2 and 7 A, solar cell
module frames 62 apply downward forces over virtually the entire
mounting-plate upper surface. Thus, if one of ordinary skill in the art were
to increase the thickness of the mounting plate to reinforce the plate against
stress, as the Examiner contends, the artisan would not simply incorporate
Bott's central portion 82, but would increase the thickness of the entire plate.
4
Appeal2017-006035
Application 12/855,850
The Examiner also suggests that Bott teaches that central portion 82
was added to strengthen mounting plate 80. Ans. 11. We disagree. The
only discemable purpose for central portion 82 is to provide room for
threaded opening 82. Bott 4: 15-17. Haddock neither describes nor claims a
mounting plate with a threaded central opening, so it is unlikely that Bott' s
central portion would have been incorporated into Haddock's mounting plate
to provide room for such an opening.
Because we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined Haddock and Bott to provide a mounting plate with a
raised structure, we decline to sustain this rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and
44--48 is reversed.
REVERSED
5