Ex Parte Kopylov

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2014

13506735 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
13/506,735 05/14/2012 Eduard Kopylov 3104
7590 02/28/2014
EDUARD KOPYLOV
2335 SO. DAWSON WAY
AURORA, CO 80014
EXAMINER
LAMBRIGHT, BETHANY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1755
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte EDUARD KOPYLOV
________________

Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE and
KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

2
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention is directed toward a portable rigid solar
photovoltaic module and applications. Spec. 1. Claim 1, the sole
independent claim, is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed July 18, 2013 (“App. Br.”):
CLAIM 1. A frameless photovoltaic module constructed as an [sic]
laminated sandwich comprising
- an optically transparent front plastic film glazing layer,
- an optically transparent upper adhesive layer,
- a PV cells layer which is a matrix of electrically connected PV cells,
- a middle adhesive layer adhering said PV cells to to [sic] a PV cells
back lining laer [sic, layer] consisting of
- a matrix of an [sic] individual plastic film tiles having the
same quality, footprints and arrangement as the PV cells and
- another sides of said plastic tiles are adhered to a PV
module rigid base sheet by a lower adhesive layer,
further,
- said front plastic film glazing layer, being adhered by said upper
adhesive laer [sic, layer] to said PV cells to said PV module rigid base
sheet, in spaces between said PV cells and the PV module rigid base
sheet peripheral areas, forms infolds in the grooved spaces between
said PV cells which are formed by combined thickness of said PV
cells, said middle adhesive layer, said back lining plastic film tiles and
said lower adhesive layer,
- where said in-folds allow compensation for thermal expansion
and contraction of said front plastic film glazing layer,
- additionally, interspaces between adjacent PV cells chamfered
corners are arranged with mounting holes drilled through the plastic
film glazing layer and
Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

3
- the PV module rigid base sheet and each said mounting hole is
reinforced by an eyelet enhancing attachment of the PV module
laminated sandwich system to the PV module rigid base sheet,
- additionally, said PV module rigid base sheet is equipped with bus
conductor strips embedded in grooves of said base sheet and
- an output cord termination chamber of the PV module is constructed
as a cutout in said base sheet and equipped with two dielectric cover
plates,
- said cutout, being located close to the PV module rigid base
sheet perimeter, is provided with a cut-through outlet neck for
PV module output cord.

App. Br. 27, Claims App’x (indentations added).
The Examiner relies on the following references in the Examiner’s
Answer mailed September 11, 2013 (“Ans.”):

Meakin US 2011/0083716 A1 Apr. 14, 2011
Becker US 2010/0037936 A1 Feb. 18, 2010
Aou1 WO 2011/024991 A1 Mar. 3, 2011
Lenox US 2007/0295391 A1 Dec. 27, 2007
Oizumi US 2012/0125431 A1 May 24, 2012
Gonzalez Moreno US 2010/0223865 A1 Sep. 9, 2010
Pizzuto US 8,002,349 B1 Aug. 23, 2011

Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Meakin in view
of Becker, Aou, Lenox and Oizumi, and claim 2 stands rejected under

1 Our consideration of Aou ‘991 is based upon US 2012/0152328 A1 to
Aou et al., published June. 21, 2012, which the Examiner relies upon as an
English language equivalent of Aou ‘991 (Ans. 4).

Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Meakin in view of Becker, Aou, Lenox and Oizumi
in view of Gonzalez Moreno and Pizzuto.2

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Meakin discloses a solar cell module of claim
1 comprising a front cover, a front encapsulant material, a plurality of
electrically connected solar cells, each solar cell having a bonding pad
disposed on the back surface thereon, an adhesive layer attaching the solar
cells/bonding pads to a backsheet, and a stacked configuration
corresponding to the “constructed as a laminated sandwich” limitation.
Final Office Action mailed May 23, 2013 (“OA”) 8-9. The Examiner
further finds that the front cover is attached to the backsheet by two adhesive
layers, the backsheet having conducting ribbons and interconnects disposed
thereon. Id. at 9.
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to use plastic as
the cover sheet instead of Meakin’s glass. Id. The Examiner then relies on:
- Becker, to disclose a printed circuit board on which solar cells are
disposed over plastic bodies acting as bonding pads, the solar cells soldered
to the plastic bodies, id. at 10;

2 The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor
regards as the invention, has been withdrawn. Ans. 15-16.

Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

5
- Aou, to disclose a solar cell module comprising a terminal box
assembly comprising a hole cut from a rear-surface protection member,
having a first surface bonded to the rear-surface protection member and an
upper lid, and a hole allowing for insertion of a power output wire through
the rear-surface protection box, id. at 11;
- Becker, to disclose a backsheet of the printed circuit board
containing conductive pin clips soldered to lands embedded in the PCB, id.
at 12;
- Aou, to disclose chamfered cells, id. at 13;
- Lenox, to disclose drilling holes between adjacent cells within a
solar cell module, having said holes extend from the top sheet through a
backsheet, each hole having a bolt and clip disposed thereon, id. at 14; and
- Oizumi, to disclose a solar module comprising solar cells disposed
between a front gas barrier film and a substrate, where the gas barrier film
and substrate adhered directly to each other between solar cells form a dip in
the gas barrier layer, id. at 15.
Appellant argues:
1. “[T]he Examiner intentionally omits full description and function
of the claimed novel components: output cord termination chamber with cut-
through outlet neck with two dielectric cover plates” producing the result:
“the output cord to exit said termination chamber through said cut-through
outlet neck in direction substantially coplanar with pv module rigid base
sheet, making this termination assembly low profile and compact, which is
suitable for compact stacking in a portable application.” App. Br. 12
(emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

6
The Examiner responds that Appellant has not pointed out the
structural limitations of claim 1 that are missing from Meakin in view of
Aou. Ans. 17. Apart from the statement reproduced above, Appellant does
not present substantive arguments regarding the rejection based on Meakin
in view of Aou. Moreover, the result upon which Appellant relies, namely,
“the output cord to exit said termination chamber through said cut-through
outlet neck in direction substantially coplanar with pv module rigid base
sheet, making this termination assembly low profile and compact, which is
suitable for compact stacking in a portable application” is not recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 12; Claims App’x. Therefore, this feature of the claimed
invention is not part of the claim before us on appeal. Arguments on appeal
must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); cf. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku
Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 US 722, 733-34 (2002), on remand, 344
F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988 (2004).
2. Meakin uses cover glass 116, which is a very different material
(with very different thermal properties) from Appellant’s optically
transparent front plastic film glazing layer 12. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner responds that it was well known in the art to use glass
or plastic transparent cover sheets for solar cell modules. Ans. 21.
Appellant does not present any persuasive argument to rebut this finding.
3. The Examiner misunderstands the arrangement and function of
Meakin’s bond pads, and thus the combination of Meakin with Becker offers
an inoperative combination. App. Br. 15.
Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

7
The Examiner responds that the rejection does not rely on Meakin to
disclose bonding pads, but rather modifies Meakin with Becker to include a
plastic body disposed below each cell. Ans. 25. Appellant has presented
arguments regarding Meakin’s bond pads, but has not presented substantive
arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection on the basis of the substitution
of the configuration disclosed by Meakin with the configuration disclosed by
Becker. Furthermore, Appellant provides no convincing argument or
evidence to support Appellant’s allegations of inoperability of the
combination of Meakin with Becker.
4. The Examiner misunderstands and wrongly applies the concept of
Meakin’s cell bonding pads in combination with Becker; also, Meakin and
Becker teach away from each other. App. Br. 16-17.
The Examiner responds that Becker teaches a structural configuration
including pin clips and a plastic body for connecting individual solar cells in
series/parallel configuration. Ans. 31. The Examiner cites Becker ¶ [0049]
to show that “[m]ounting of the solar cell chip packages may be by soldering
to pads on the PCB . . . .” Id. Becker’s configuration appears to explicitly
permit the soldering of the solar cell packages to the pads on the
PCB board. Moreover, Appellant has not presented any persuasive evidence
in the record before us to support the allegation that Meakin and Becker
teach away from each other.
5. The Examiner draws a wrong and unjustified similarity between
Appellant’s bus conductor strips embedded in grooves with Becker’s
conductive pin clips, and the Examiner has “[r]ubber stamped
‘obviousness’” without any justification. App. Br. 18.
Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

8
The Examiner responds that Appellant has provided no argument
regarding how Becker’s pin clips differ from the claimed bus conductor
strips. Ans. 37. It appears that Becker’s wire leads and pin clips
configuration meets the claim 1 limitation of “bus conductor strips
embedded in grooves.” The Examiner also responds that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the conductor lead
configuration of Meakin with the plastic body/wire leads/pin clip
configuration taught by Becker, to allow the cells to be connected in
series/parallel combinations as taught by Becker ¶ [0039]. Id. Appellant
presents no specific arguments to the contrary.
6. Lenox is irrelevant as it presents an idea of mounting adjacent PV
modules to a roof deck, which assembly is completely different than the
instant claimed mounting holes. App. Br. 19.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s remarks concern non-
claimed subject matter, namely, “eyelets which are integral parts of a PV
module, are evenly distributed throughout a PV module surface, providing
distributed enhancement of attachment of the PV module laminated
sandwich system to the PV module base sheet.” Ans. 39-40; App. Br. 19.
Appellant’s eyelet structure, as claimed, requires “mounting holes drilled
through the plastic film glazing layer and the PV module rigid base sheet”
where “each said mounting hole is reinforced by an eyelet enhancing
attachment.” As such, the Examiner correctly finds that the subject claim
limitation is met by Lenox.
Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

9
7. The Examiner wrongly identifies Oizumi element 10, and
moreover, Oizumi does not have the elevation to produce functional in-folds
such as Appellant’s. App. Br. 20-22.
The Examiner responds that Oizumi Fig. 6 does demonstrate in-folds
in a front gas barrier layer between two solar cells. Ans. 44. Additionally,
the Examiner responds that claim 1 does not contain any limitations
regarding the thickness of the layers or the process disclosed in the subject
application. Id. The Examiner correctly finds that Oizumi demonstrates in-
folds between PV cells as claimed in claim 1. The Appellant has not argued
persuasively that the in-folds of Oizumi would not result in functional in-
folds that would allow for expansion and contraction.

Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner incorporates the findings with
respect to the rejection of claim 1, above, and further relies on Gonzalez
Moreno to disclose a rotational structure attached to a solar cell panel, OA
16, and Pizzuto to disclose attaching a solar panel to a chair. Id. at 18.
The Appellant argues that Gonzalez Moreno does not have horizontal
articulations, and that Pizzuto’s system cannot match the performance of the
claimed structure. App. Br. 24-25.
The Examiner finds that Gonzalez Moreno explicitly states that its
“horizontal articulations” are in fact horizontal. Ans. 49; Gonzalez Moreno
¶ [0024]. The Examiner reiterates that that Pizzuto discloses utilization of a
solar module in combination with a chair, Ans. 50, notwithstanding its
attachment system, which is disclosed by Gonzalez Moreno.
Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

10
The deficiencies of Appellant’s nonobviousness evidence lead us to
determine that, on balance, the arguments and evidence of record weigh
most heavily in favor of an ultimate conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant groups a number of captioned paragraphs, such as “Lack of
Implementation” and “Unsuggested Modification,” under the heading
“Sighted deficiencies/violations in the Examiner [sic] above statement”
following each of the foregoing arguments. App. Br. 12-26. These
captioned paragraphs are reproduced, in varied combinations, from
argument to argument, and generally state that the Examiner erred without
explaining why; these captioned paragraphs do not relate specifically to the
argument being presented.
In each case, the Examiner responds, in effect, that Appellant has
made a conclusory statement and has provided no convincing argument
opposing the Examiner’s position. Ans. 18-53. We do not find use of such
argument by Appellant to be persuasive. Appellant’s captioned paragraph
arguments are, in effect, an argument that the Examiner’s rejection is in
error on its face. We have reviewed the rejection and do not agree. See Ex
Parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 (BPAI 2009)
(informative) (“[W]e find that the Examiner has made extensive specific fact
finding . . . with respect to each of the argued claims. . . . However,
Appellants do not present any arguments why the Examiner’s explicit fact
finding is in error.”)
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2014-001054
Application 13/506,735

11
ORDER

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

kmm