Ex Parte Koakutsu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

10508539 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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.
10/508,539 09/27/2004 Hideaki Koakutsu 259360US3PCT 7548
22850 7590 03/09/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
TRINH, THANH TRUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDEAKI KOAKUTSU
Appeal 2015-004523
Application 10/508,539
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter the “Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 8,
10, 12, and 14.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The Appellant states that the real party in interest is “Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation” (Appeal Brief filed on August 26, 2014, hereinafter “Appeal
Br.,” 1).
2 Appeal Br. 3—10; Final Office Action (notice delivered electronically on
February 26, 2014), hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2—8; Examiner’s Answer
(notice delivered electronically on January 15, 2015), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—
9.
Appeal 2015-004523
Application 10/508,539
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a solar cell panel for use in
spacecrafts (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1,11. 5—6). Representative
claim 8 is reproduced from the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix i) (emphasis
added), as follows:
8. A solar cell panel comprising:
at least one solar cell module including:
a plurality of solar cell assembly series, each solar cell
assembly series including a plurality of solar cells and
interconnectors each for electrically connecting between two of
the plurality of solar cells in the plurality of solar cell assembly
series, said plurality of solar cells being arranged substantially
in a line and any two of said plurality of solar cells being
electrically connected in series by one of said interconnectors;
an insulator on which said plurality of solar cell assembly
series are arranged at predetermined gaps;
first connection lines that electrically connect some of
said plurality of solar cell assembly series so that they are
connected in series so as to form a first solar cell string; and
second connection lines that electrically connect
remaining ones of said plurality of solar cell assembly series so
that they are electrically connected in series so as to form a
second solar cell string different from the first solar cell string,
wherein each solar cell of a first solar cell assembly
series of said first solar cell string is arranged immediately
adjacent to a corresponding one of each solar cell of a second
solar cell assembly series of said second solar cell string,
wherein each solar cell of a second solar cell assembly
series of said first solar cell string is arranged immediately
adjacent to a corresponding one of each solar cell of a first solar
cell assembly series of said second solar cell string,
and wherein any two adjacent solar cells in the adjacent
first and second solar cell assembly series have a potential
difference that does not exceed a maximum output voltage V
of each solar cell assembly series.
2
Appeal 2015-004523
Application 10/508,539
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 10, 12, and 14 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoeber et al.3 (hereinafter “Hoeber”) in
view of Boulanger.4
DISCUSSION
I. Claims 8, 10, and 12
The Appellant argues claims 8, 10, and 12 together (Appeal Br. 3—9).
Therefore, claims 10 and 12 stand or fall with claim 8, which we select as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that Hoeber describes a solar cell panel including
every limitation recited in claim 8 except “the reference does not teach two
solar cell strings arranged as claimed” (Final Act. 2—3) (relying on Hoeber’s
Figs. 21—22). The Examiner found, however, that Boulanger teaches
interlacing two solar cell strings in which the terminals of each string are
started and ended at opposite comers in order to reduce further the potential
difference between two contiguous cells {id. at 3) (relying on Boulanger Fig.
5; 24—26, 29). Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded (id.):
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the solar cell panel of
Hoeber et al. by incorporating an additional solar cell string such
that two solar cell strings (of Hoeber et al.) are interlaced as
taught by Boulanger, because Boulanger teaches such interlacing
would reduce further the potential difference of two contiguous
3 US 6,240,950 Bl, issued June 19, 2001.
4 WO 02/074623 Al, published September 26, 2002. The Examiner relied
on the corresponding United States application (US 2004/0112419 Al,
published June 17, 2004) as a translation. Therefore, our citations to
Boulanger are to the published United States application.
3
Appeal 2015-004523
Application 10/508,539
cells thereby reducing electrical arcing of the panel (see Figures
5-6, paragraph 0024-0026 and 0029).
According to the Examiner (id.), the resulting combination “would have the
same arrangement as claimed and therefore the same characteristics as
claimed.”
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection is flawed
because Hoeber and Boulanger do not teach or suggest that ‘“any two
adjacent solar cells (not in the same solar cell assembly series) in the
adjacent first and second solar cell assembly series have a potential
difference that does not exceed a maximum output voltage V of each solar
cell assembly seriesf,]”’ as required by claim 8 (Appeal Br. 4). The
Appellant also argues that Examiner’s findings based on Boulanger’s Figure
5 are incorrect, as demonstrated by a table and several figures included in
the Appeal Brief (id. at 4—8). According to the Appellant, combining
Hoeber’s Figure 21 and Boulanger’s Figure 5 would not result in a device as
shown in the Appellant’s Figure 4 (id. at 8).
As to claim 8, the Appellant’s arguments fail to identify a reversible
error in the Examiner’s factual findings, analysis, and legal conclusion,
which we adopt as our own. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
“[Djuring patent prosecution when claims can be amended,
ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as
possible, during the administrative process.” Id. at 322. “[A]s applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during
4
Appeal 2015-004523
Application 10/508,539
prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON
Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Here, the Examiner found that in a series connection, “the potential
difference between two adjacent solar cells of 2v would never exceed the
maximum output voltage V=n*v of each solar cell assembly series, where n
is greater than 2” (Final Act. 8). That finding is not specifically disputed
(Appeal Br. 4). Instead, the Appellant’s position appears to be that the
finding is erroneous because claim 8 requires the “any two adjacent solar
cells” to be cells from two different solar cell assembly series (id.). But
giving the disputed claim limitation “any two adjacent solar cells in the
adjacent first and second solar cell assembly series” (claim 8) its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we conclude that
the “any two adjacent solar cells,” as recited in claim 8, need not necessarily
be in two different assembly series. Contrary to the Appellant’s position
(Appeal Br. 4), claim 8 does not require the “any two adjacent solar cells” to
be “not in the same solar cell assembly series” (underlining omitted). In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The “name of the game
is the claim” and unclaimed features cannot impart patentability to claims).
The Appellant’s other arguments (e.g., the argument based on a table
on page 5 of the Appeal Brief) amount to mere conclusory statements as
they are not supported by evidence (e.g., declaration evidence) and,
therefore, are entitled to little or no probative value. See, e.g., In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection as to claims 8,
10, and 12.
5
Appeal 2015-004523
Application 10/508,539
II. Claim 14
Claim 14 recites (Claims App’x iii; emphasis added):
14. The solar cell panel according to Claim 8,
wherein the first solar cell string and the second solar cell
string form substantially concentric loops such that subsequent
solar cell assembly series of the first and second solar cell
strings are formed immediately adjacent each other, and
wherein any two adjacent solar cells in the subsequent solar cell
assembly series of the first and second solar cell strings have a
potential difference that does not exceed a maximum output
voltage V of each solar cell assembly series.
The Examiner stated: “In modified Hoeber et al., the solar cell strings
(e.g. the first and second solar cell strings) form substantially concentric
loops such that subsequent solar assembly series of the first and second solar
cell strings are formed immediate adjacent each other as claimed” (Final
Act. 4). The Appellant disagrees (Appeal Br. 9—10).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, the Examiner failed to identify
any factual basis for finding that Hoeber discloses the disputed claim
limitation. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“To
facilitate review, [an obviousness] analysis should be made explicit.”). See
also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (placing the initial
burden of establish a prima facie case on the examiner).
Therefore, we cannot affirm.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed as to claims 8, 10, and 12 but
reversed as to claim 14.
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-IN-PART
6