Ex Parte NANIA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2019

15219600 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/219,600 07/26/2016
28395 7590 01/28/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adrian NANIA
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.
83667620 9606
EXAMINER
PEDDER, DENNIS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADRIAN NANIA, JACOB MATHEWS,
NOAH BARLOW MASS, DANIEL BOSTON, HADI MALEK,
and MICHAEL ROBERT TINSKEY
Appeal2018-004288
Application 15/219,600
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CAL VE, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated June 23, 2017.
Appeal2018-004288
Application 15/219,600
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 8,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
8. A vehicle roof panel comprising:
a support structure having a first section defined by
an outer periphery of the support structure; and
a solar panel module disposed within the first
section, and including a solar array adhered to a plate
having a plurality of ribs extending across an area of the
solar array, the ribs having a V-shaped cross-section
spaced throughout the first section to support the solar
panel module within the support structure.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 8, 9, 14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Teschner '816 (US 2002/0053816 Al; published
May 9, 2002) and Suga (US 8,916,019 B2; issued Dec. 23, 2014).
II. Claims 1, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Teschner '816, Suga, and Jang (US 2012/0291841 Al;
published Nov. 22, 2012).
III. Claims 2-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Teschner '816, Suga, Jang, and Paetz (US 6,942,288 B2;
issued Sept. 13, 2005).
IV. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Teschner '816, Suga, and Shimizu (US 2011/0088749 A 1; published
Apr. 21, 2011).
V. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Teschner '816, Suga, and Patz (US 6,331,031 B 1; issued
Dec. 18, 2001).
2
Appeal2018-004288
Application 15/219,600
VI. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Teschner '816, Suga, and Chihlas (US 2014/0102518 Al; issued Apr.
17, 2014).
VII. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Teschner '816, Suga, and Teschner '148 (US 6,517,148 Bl; issued Feb.
11, 2003).
VIII. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Teschner '816, Suga, and Schmidt (US 7,834,265 B2;
issued Nov. 16, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 8, 9, 14, and 16-18 as a group. We select
claim 8 as representative, with claims 9, 14, and 16-18 standing or falling
with claim 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 8, the Examiner finds that Teschner
'816 discloses a support structure (i.e., motor vehicle roof 10) with sections
(i.e., front and rear roof openings (i.e., 12, 14)), and a solar panel module
with a solar array (i.e., solar cells 32), as claimed. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner determines that Teschner '816 fails to disclose a solar panel
module including a solar array adhered to a plate having ribs extending
across an area of the solar array, wherein the ribs have a V-shaped cross-
section spaced throughout a section of the support structure to support the
solar panel module within the support structure, as claimed, and the
Examiner relies on Suga for disclosing "a solar panel bifacial array" that
may be supported by "an underlying plate" with "V-shaped ribs at 4" and
3
Appeal2018-004288
Application 15/219,600
having a reflective surface "to enhance solar energy collection." Id. The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious "to provide in [Teschner
'816] the bifacial array, plate and ribs of [Suga] ... to both support the solar
array as well as to increase solar output." Ans. 3 (emphasis added); see also
Final Act. 3.
Appellants submit that Suga discloses that "the light reflection plate
has 'a corrugated (concavo-convex) shape ... arranged on a back surface
side of the solar cell elements 2 so as to reflect sunlight incident inside the
module from the front surface side of the module towards the front surface
side of the module,"' and thus, "the light reflection plate has an intended
purpose to reflect sunlight." Id. at 3 ( quoting Suga 4:20-26). Appellants
argue that
Id.
[u]sing the light reflection plate of Suga as the underlying plate
with V-shaped ribs in combination with Teschner ['816] renders
the light reflection plate of Suga unsatisfactory to reflect
sunlight. For example, it is unclear how light will reflect off the
light reflection plate when the light reflection plate is supporting
a solar array. Using the light reflection plate as V-shaped ribs in
combination with the solar cells of Teschner ['816] prevents the
light reflection plate from reflecting sunlight.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Teschner '816
discloses placing solar cells 32 directly beneath transparent planes 34, 36.
See, e.g., Teschner '816 ,r 23 ("transparent panes 34 and 36 are each
provided on their bottom surfaces with solar cells 32 at their rear edge").
The Examiner proposes modifying Teschner '816, which the Examiner
correctly determines fails to disclose the details of solar cells 32, in view of
the teachings of Suga, and in particular, as set forth supra, "to provide in
4
Appeal2018-004288
Application 15/219,600
[Teschner '816] the bifacial array, plate and ribs of [Suga]." Final Act. 3.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection is to construct solar cells 32 of Teschner '816
as disclosed in Suga, wherein the solar cells ( or solar cell module 1) include
bifacial photovoltaic solar cell elements 2, a front surface plate 3
. . . , a light reflective plate 4 having a corrugated ( concavo-
convex) shape and arranged on the back surface side of the solar
cell elements 2 so as to reflect sunlight incident inside the module
from the front surface ... towards the front surface side of the
module, and a resin part 5 made from an encapsulation resin for
securing the solar cell elements 2 and arranged between the front
surface plate 3 and the light reflection plate 4.
Suga 2: 15-27, Fig. 1. 3 Thus, we do not agree with Appellants that placing
Suga's solar cell module 1 directly beneath the transparent planes 34, 36 of
Teschner '816 would render Suga's reflection plate 4 unsatisfactory for
reflecting sunlight.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide
"motivation or objective reason to combine the disclosures to Teschner
['816] and Suga." Appeal Br. 4. Further, Appellants submit that the
Examiner's rationale is "inconsistent with the actual disclosure to Suga,
namely that a flexible, plastic substrate has a reasonable expectation of
success to support the solar array." Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend that
the "V-shaped ribs at 4" [are] described [in] Suga as a light
reflection plate that "comprises a plastic substrate 6 ... and a
thermoplastic resin film 7." ... The disclosure to Suga further
3 To the extent Appellants are interpreting the Examiner's rejection as
constructing solar cells 32 of Teschner '816 with only the bifacial array 2
and ribbed plate 4, without at least resin part 5, such an interpretation is
unreasonable. See Reply Br. 2. Moreover, Suga teaches the necessity of
including transparent material in the construction of a solar cell module
having a concavo-convex shaped reflection plate. See, e.g., Suga 6:8-14.
5
Appeal2018-004288
Application 15/219,600
finds that the encapsulation resin is "a soft and transparent resin
having excellent flexibility." ... It is unclear why one of
ordinary skill would use highly flexible and plastically
deformable substrate to support a delicate solar array.
Id. (citing Suga 4:24--24, 33-36).
Again, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As set forth
supra, the Examiner has articulated a rationale for modifying Teschner '816,
in view of Suga, namely, "to both support the solar array as well as to
increase solar output." Ans. 3. Indeed, Suga discloses that "light reflection
plate 4 comprises a plastic substrate 6 which is subjected to corrugated
concavo-convex processing and a thermoplastic resin film 7 having a light
reflection surface capable of reflecting sunlight and bonded to a surface of
the plastic substrate 6." Suga 4:34--38. Suga expressly discloses that "[a]s
the plastic substrate 6, a metallic plate made from aluminum, stainless steel,
brass, copper, or iron, or an expandable resin sheet having plastically
deformable properties can be used." Id. 4:39--41 (emphasis added). Suga
further discloses that "plastic substrate 6" has "rigidity" (id. 6:61---63), and
that "the light reflection plate 4 is a structure obtained by subjecting the thin
plastic substrate 6 to sheet metal processing, ... such that light reflection
plate 4 itself functions as a spring to flexibly absorb thermal contraction
stress" (id. 7:45-50). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that substrate 6 is a component in Suga's solar cell
module 1 that provides support. Appellants' reference to Suga's soft and
transparent encapsulation resin (i.e., resin part 5) is not relevant to the
Examiner's reliance on Suga's light reflection plate 4 for providing a plate
having V-shaped ribs capable of supporting the solar cells, or a solar
module, within motor vehicle roof 10 of Teschner '816.
6
Appeal2018-004288
Application 15/219,600
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 8 and claims 9, 14, and 16-18 fall therewith.
Rejections II-VIII
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Jang, Paetz,
Shimizu, Patz, Chihlas, Teschner '148, and Schmidt fails to cure the
deficiencies in the Examiner's reliance on the combination of Teschner '816
and Suga, however, because we do not agree that the Examiner's rejection is
deficient, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2-7, 10-13, 15,
19, and 20. See Appeal Br. 4--6; Reply Br. 2.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7