Ex Parte Haga

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12879431 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
12/879,431 09/10/2010 Takahiro Haga 042479A 6960
38834 7590 03/02/2017
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
DINH, BACH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
patentmail @ whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKAHIRO HAGA
Appeal 2016-002527
Application 12/879,431
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 8—15 and 17—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-002527
Application 12/879,431
Claim 8 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
8. A solar battery module comprising:
a light penetrable sheet member;
a sheet member;
a plurality of plate-like solar cells held between said light
penetrable sheet member on a light receiving surface side and
said sheet member on a back surface side being sealed by a
sealing resin, the solar cells comprising a collecting electrode
arranged on the light receiving surface and the back surface, the
collecting electrode on the light receiving surface including two
bus electrodes and a plurality of finger electrodes; and
two connection members extending in parallel, each of
the two connection members connected to the bus electrodes of
the collecting electrodes for electrically connecting the adjacent
solar cells,
wherein the two connection members each comprise a
light diffusion section having a rugged surface for diffusely
reflecting a light incident through the light penetrable sheet
member, the light diffusion sections on the two connection
members extend in parallel,
wherein said rugged surface is located on top of said
connection member and over said solar cell, and
wherein a light reflected on the light diffusion section
over the solar cell is reflected again on the light penetrable
sheet member and is incident on the light receiving surface of
the solar cell that is arranged on both sides of the bus electrode.
2
Appeal 2016-002527
Application 12/879,431
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—15
and 17—20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chandra
(US 2002/0056473 Al, published May 16, 2002), Uematsu (US 6,323,415
Bl, issued November 27, 2001), Peumans (US 2001/0011551 Al, published
August 9, 2001), Cummings1 (US 2002/0190643 Al, published December
19, 2002), Kim2 (US 2005/0046331 Al, published March 3, 2005) and
Bonicel (US 2004/0008440 Al, published January 15, 2004). App. Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments address principally independent claim 8. See
Appeal Brief, generally. Appellant relies on these arguments in addressing
the rejection of claims 9—15 and 17—20. App. Br. 9. Accordingly, we select
claim 8 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. Claims
9—15 and 17—20 stand or fall with claim 8.
1 A discussion of the reference to Cummings is unnecessary for this appeal.
This reference is pertinent only to the subject matter of claim 14, which was
not separately argued. Final Act. 6. The reference to Cummings was not
relied upon for the rejection of representative claim 8. See Final Action,
generally.
2 In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues Kim is not prior art against the
claimed invention. Reply Br. 2 (footnote 1). Kim was relied upon by the
Examiner as evidence that a metal layer formed by thermal spraying metal
powders is reflective. Final Act. 3; Kim 149. We note Appellant
acknowledges in the Appeal Brief that the metals thermally sprayed by
Chandra encompasses metals which reflect light. App. Br. 8. Thus, we find
the Examiner’s reliance on Kim to be harmless error in view of Appellant’s
acknowledgement.
3
Appeal 2016-002527
Application 12/879,431
OPINION
Prior Art Rejection
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add
the following for emphasis.
The claimed invention is directed to a solar battery module
comprising a solar cell arrangement having solar cells connected by
connection members, the arrangement being sealed by a resin between a
light penetrable sheet member and a sheet member. The solar cell
arrangement comprises rugged surfaces on top of the connection members
for diffusely reflecting a light incident through the light penetrable sheet
member. That is, the solar battery module is designed to provide a structure
that effectively utilizes a light reflected within the solar battery module.
Spec. 7.
The Examiner found Chandra discloses the claimed solar cell
arrangement (plurality of solar cells). Final Act 3; Chandra Figure 1. The
Examiner found Uematsu discloses as known to form a solar cell module by
using a resin to seal a solar cell arrangement between a light penetrable sheet
member and a back sheet. Final Act. 4; Uematsu Figures 16D, 16E, col. 20,
11. 4—24. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to use Chandra’s solar cell arrangement in forming a solar
cell module, as taught by Uematsu. Final Act 4; Uematsu col. 20,11. 4—8,
col. 13,11. 48-61.
Appellant argues the solar battery module resulting from the
combined teachings of the cited art would not reflect light towards the same
4
Appeal 2016-002527
Application 12/879,431
solar cell, as claimed, because Uematsu teaches reflecting light towards a
different solar cell. App. Br. 6; Spec. Figure 4; Uematsu Figures 4A-4C.
We are unpersuaded by this argument. As noted by the Examiner,
Appellant’s argument only addresses the teachings of Uematsu and does not
address the Examiner’s stated combination of prior art where a solar battery
module is formed by sealing Chandra’s solar cell arrangement between a
light permeable sheet and a back sheet. Ans. 9—10. Given that Chandra’s
solar cell arrangement is similar to the claimed arrangement of a plurality of
cells {cf. Chandra’s Figure 1 v. Appellant’s Figure 4), Appellant has not
adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have expected the
light reflected by the solar battery module of the combined teachings of the
cited art to be incident on the same solar cell from which it reflected from.
Moreover, the solar cell arrangement of Uematsu appears to be different
from the solar cell arrangement of Chandra. Cf. Chandra’s Figure 1 (solar
cells 1, 7) v. Uematsu’s Figures 16A, 16B, 16E (solar photovoltaic element
4). Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would
expect the same light reflecting pattern of Uematsu for different solar cell
arrangements. Appellant has not directed us to any evidence in support of
the assertion that the light reflected within a solar battery module comprising
Chandra’s solar cell arrangement would not be incident on the same solar
cell from which it was reflected. Ans. 12.
Appellant further argues Chandra does not disclose forming a
conductive path having a rugged surface by thermal spraying as claimed.
App. Br. 8. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s speculatory reliance on
Bonicel does not prove Chandra’s thermal spraying results in a rugged
surface. Id. at 9.
5
Appeal 2016-002527
Application 12/879,431
We are also unpersuaded by these arguments. The Examiner found
that Chandra discloses making connection members 2 by thermal spraying
metal powders of reflective metals. Final Act. 3; Chandra 130. The
Examiner relied on Bonicel to establish that thermal spraying metal powder
onto a substrate produces a metal layer with surface roughness (rugged
surface). Final Act. 3; Bonicel 1 39. Thus, the Examiner provided a
reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to understand that Chandra’s
thermally sprayed metal layer has a rugged surface.
In further addressing the Examiner’s reasoning as to why Chandra’s
thermally sprayed layer has a rugged surface, Appellant points to Popoola,
directed to bonding metals to aluminum substrates, as disclosing that the
roughness of the surface of the film made by the thermal spray depends on
the size of the material being sprayed, not necessarily thermal spraying per
se. App. Br. 9; Popoola col. 1,11. 6—8, col. 5,11. 2—5. This argument is also
unavailing because, as noted by the Examiner, Appellant has not adequately
explained how Popoola detracts from the Examiner’s reasoning that
Chandra’s thermally sprayed metallic layer has a rugged surface based on
Bonicel above. Ans. 15—16.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—15 and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
6
Appeal 2016-002527
Application 12/879,431
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).
AFFIRMED
7