Ex Parte Nikoonahad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

12616732 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
12/616,732 11/11/2009 Mehrdad Nikoonahad PART-01000US0 3136
28554 7590 01/31/2018
Vierra Magen Marcus LLP
575 Market Street, Suite 3750
San Francisco, CA 94105
EXAMINER
PILLAY, DEVINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1757
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
patents @ vierramagen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHRDAD NIKOONAHAD
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
maintained rejection of claims 39 and 42—60. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to photovoltaic
solar panels with improved efficiency. Specification filed November 11,
2009 (“Spec.”), Abstract.
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
Independent claims 39, 45, and 47 are directed to photovoltaic solar
panels that comprise groups of energy conversion cells arranged in a first
hermetically sealed space between a first sheet and second sheet, an access
matrix positioned in the hermetically sealed space, and electronic circuitry
integrated with the second sheet and positioned in a second hermetically
sealed space.
Independent claim 39 is representative (emphasis added).
39. A photovoltaic solar panel, comprising:
a first sheet;
a second sheet adjacent to the first sheet;
a hermetically sealed space in between the first sheet and
the second sheet, the hermetically sealed space includes a
plurality of energy conversion cells arranged in two dimensions
across a substantially two-dimensional plane in the hermetically
sealed space, the plurality of energy conversion cells includes a
f irst group of energy conversion cells and a second group of
energy conversion cells;
an access matrix in the hermetically sealed space, the
first group of energy conversion cells includes a first positive
polarity terminal and a first negative polarity terminal, the
second group of energy conversion cells includes a second
positive polarity terminal and a second negative polarity
terminal, the access matrix includes a plurality of conductors,
the plurality of conductors includes a first conductor connected
to the first positive polarity terminal and a second conductor
connected to the second positive polarity terminal; and
electronic circuitry integrated with the second sheet and
directly connected to each of the plurality of conductors, the
plurality of conductors and the electronic circuitry do not
extend outside of a hermetically sealed environment, the
hermetically sealed environment includes the hermetically
sealed space and a second hermetically sealed space that houses
the electronic circuitry, the second hermetically sealed space is
outside of the hermetically sealed space between the first sheet
2
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
and the second sheet, the electronic circuitry independently
receives a first power generated from the first group of energy
conversion cells and a second power generated from the second
group of energy conversion cells via the plurality of conductors,
the electronic circuitry monitors a first set of operation
parameters associated with the first group of energy conversion
cells and monitors a second set of operation parameters
associated with the second group of energy conversion cells,
the first set of operation parameters includes at least one of a
first voltage or a first current associated with the first group of
energy conversion cells, the second set of operation parameters
includes at least one of a second voltage or a second current
associated with the second group of energy conversion cells,
the electronic circuitry optimizes the first power generated from
the first group of energy conversion cells independent of the
second power generated from the second group of energy
conversion cells.
Appeal Brief filed April 22, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), 21.
Claim 45 is similarly directed to “[a] photovoltaic solar panel,
comprising[] . . . electronic circuity configured to adjust the first set of
operation parameters and the second set of operation parameters based on
computations performed by the electronic circuitry.”
Claim 47 is similarly directed to “[a] photovoltaic solar panel,
comprising[] . . . electronic circuity [that] optimizes a power generation of
said photovoltaic solar panel using said first power generated from said first
group of energy conversion cells and said second power generated from said
second group of energy conversion cells.”
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for
lack of written description.
3
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
Claims 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
for indefiniteness.
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
Claims 39, 44, 45, 47, 49-51, 54—56, and 60 over Sun1 in view of
Posbic.2
Claims 42, 43, 46, 48, 52, 53, 57, and 59 over Sun in view of Posbic
and Rotzoll.3
Claims 52, 53, and 57 over Sun in view of Posbic and Shaver.4
Claim 58 over Sun in view of Posbic and Mimura.5
DISCUSSION6
On this record, having reviewed the maintained grounds of rejection
set forth by the Examiner, Appellant’s arguments, and the Examiner’s
response, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred reversibly in rejecting
claim 60 under both the first and second paragraphs of § 112, but are
unpersuaded of reversible error in the rejections under § 103.
For any ground of rejection, “the [Ejxaminer bears the initial burden
. . . of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We consider the record to determine
whether Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
1 Sun et al., US 2010/0043868 Al, published February 25, 2010.
2 Posbic et al., US 2005/0224109 Al, published October 13, 2005.
3 Rotzoll et al., US 2009/0000654 Al, published January 1, 2009.
4 Shaver et al., US 2008/0238195 Al, published October 2, 2008.
5 Mimura, US 6,515,215 Bl, issued February 4, 2003.
6 In this discussion, we refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action
dated November 23, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s
Answer dated October 14, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
December 13, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
4
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the
Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential)).
We add the following.
Written Description
Claim 60, depending from claim 47, recites “a third conductor directly
connected to said third positive polarity terminal and a fourth conductor
directly connected to said first negative polarity terminal, said third
conductor and said fourth conductor directly connected to said electronic
circuitry.”
The Examiner maintains that while Figures 4A, 4B, and 11 show
strings of energy conversion cells having both positive and negative polarity
terminals with terminals of both polarity connected to electronic circuitry,
there is no direct, electronic, or electrical connection between the different
strings of energy conversion cells. Ans. 2—A.
Appellant contends there is sufficient written description support for
the connection of the different strings in paragraph 86 of the Specification in
reference to Figure 9D. Appeal Br. 19. As disclosed in paragraph 86, “[t]he
groups . . . can be in electrical connection with each other in series, or in
parallel, or in a combination thereof.”
In response, the Examiner contends that, regardless, “no direct
connection can be found between the first, second, third, fourth conductor
[sic, conductors] and the electronic circuitry can be found in combination or
is shown by Applicant.” Ans. 37. The Examiner maintains “it is unclear
how this direct connection occurs because it is not shown, only a direct
5
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
connection between multiple conductors and an access matrix is shown in
Fig. 9D.” Ans. 37.
The access matrix, however, is described in the Specification as
including electrical conductors that reasonably disclose the direct
connections the Examiner contends are lacking. See, e.g., Spec. ]Hf 60, 62—
64, 72, and 82. For example, as described, “[t]he electrical conductors can
electrically connect individual energy conversion cells and/or groups of the
cells to other electrical devices at a location outside the space” (Spec. 1 60),
can include “dangling ends that extend out of the dielectric body [of the
matrix]” (id. at 162), and “can extend beyond the space defined by the first
sheet and the second sheet to locations outside the hermetically sealed space
and/or the photovoltaic solar panel” (id. at | 64). The Examiner’s rejection
fails to address how these, and other, disclosures fail to provide sufficient
written description and we, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of claim
60 for lack of written description.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner maintains claim 60 is indefinite because:
It is unclear how the first conductor is directly connected to
both the first positive polarity terminal and the electronic
circuitry as well as being electrically connected to the second
negative polarity terminal; how the second conductor is directly
connected to both the second positive polarity terminal and the
electronic circuitry as well as being electrically connected to the
third negative polarity terminal; how the third conductor is
directly connected to both the third positive polarity terminal
and the electronic circuitry as well as being electrically
connected to the first negative polarity terminal.
6
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
Ans. 4. The Examiner fails to explain, however, why a claim reciting direct
connection of a conductor to two different terminals and to electronic
circuitry is in any way indefinite. Further, it is manifest that a single
conductor, such as a wire, could directly connect to many different elements
by simply contacting the many different elements. Thus, the Examiner erred
reversibly in determining claim 60 is indefinite and we, accordingly, do not
sustain the rejection.
Obviousness
Sun in view of Posbic — Claims 39, 44, 45, 47, 49—51, 54—56, and 60
The Examiner relies on Sun for its disclosure of a photovoltaic solar
panel comprising a space within its support frame that includes a plurality of
energy conversion cells 200 grouped into first and second groups of energy
conversion cells and arranged in two dimensions across a substantially two-
dimensional plane in the space. Ans. 4—5 (citing Sun || 20—21, and Fig. 2).
The Examiner relies on Sun’s disclosed current conducting wires and
connection parts in the identified space as the access matrix and its wires,
and their arrangement for the plurality of conductors recited in the claim.
Ans. 5 (citing Sun || 20-21, and Fig. 2). The Examiner also relies on Sun’s
disclosed electronic circuitry 220 directly connected to the plurality of
conductors, finding that the electronic circuitry has the capacity to monitor a
first set of operation parameters, the first voltage, associated with a first
group of energy conversion cells, and the capacity to monitor a second set of
operation parameters, a second voltage, associated with a second group of
energy conversion cells. Ans. 6 (citing Sun 124).
The Examiner relies on Sun’s electronic circuity’s capacity to switch
off independent strings of energy conversion cells if not within an accepted
7
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
voltage range for the limitation in independent claim 39 that “the electronic
circuity optimizes the first power generated from the first group of energy
conversion cells independent of the second power generated from the second
group of energy conversion cells.” Ans. 6 (citing Sun || 24—25). The
Examiner reasons that disconnecting a group of energy cells not producing a
voltage within an acceptable range alters the voltage produced, and thus
constitutes optimization in that the power produced, i.e., zero power, is
preferred over a non-zero power outside an acceptable range. Ans. 29.
As to independent claim 45, the Examiner similarly relies on Sun,
including on its electronic circuitry, finding, inter alia, that “[t]he electronic
circuitry has the capacity to adjust the first set of operation parameters and
the second set of operation parameters based on computations performed by
the electronic circuit (222 switches off independent strings if not within an
accepted voltage range with direction from the MMPT unit 206[)].” Ans. 8—
9 (citing Sun || 24—25).
As to independent claim 47, the Examiner likewise relies on Sun,
including on its electronic circuitry, finding, inter alia, that the “electronic
circuitry includes a transistor (FET) and an inductor” and that the “electronic
circuitry has the capacity to optimize a power generation of said
photovoltaic solar panel using said first power generated from said first
group of energy conversion cells and said second power generated from said
second group of energy conversion cells” in that “222 switches off
independent strings if not within an accepted voltage range with direction
from the MMPT unit 206.” Ans. 11—12.
As to the first and second sheets, the recited hermetically sealed space
between them, and the second hermetically sealed space, the Examiner relies
8
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
on Posbic, which discloses a photovoltaic solar panel with a frame
surrounding a first sheet 5, a second sheet 10, and a first hermetically sealed
space between the sheets in which a plurality of energy conversion cells are
situated along with an access matrix 30, and electronic circuity 40. Ans. 6—7
(citing Posbic 27, 33, and 274). The Examiner further finds that the
disclosed “electronic circuity is integrated with the second sheet” and that
there is a “second hermetically sealed space outside the first hermetically
sealed space,” and that the second hermetically sealed space houses
electronic circuitry. Ans. 7 (citing Posbic 131, Fig. 1). The Examiner also
relies on Posbic’s disclosure relating to the benefit of forming a
“hermetically sealed environment... to seal and protect both the energy
conversion cells and electronic circuitry from moisture or weather
elements.” Ans. 7 (citing Posbic H 27, 31); see also Ans. 10-11, 13—14.
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention, armed with the cited teachings of Sun and Posbic,
would have found it obvious to utilize a hermetically sealed first space to
seal and protect the energy conversion cells and a second hermetically sealed
space to protect electronic circuity from moisture and weather elements.
Ans. 7; see also Ans. 11, 13—14.
As to claims 39 and 44, Appellant contends that Sun teaches an array
of separate solar modules or panels and not a single solar panel. Appeal Br.
9-10. In so arguing, Appellant maintains that “[e]ach string of solar cells
202 in Figure 2 of Sun corresponds to a separate solar module or panel.”
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Sun 120); see also Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant contends
that the MPPT unit 206 controlling the on-off control unit 204 intakes a
single peak DC power output 224, thus only optimizes power for the entire
9
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
solar array 218. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Sun || 24—25, and Fig. 2). Again
relying on each string of solar cells 202 corresponding to a separate solar
module or panel, Appellant contends that “the MPPT unit 206 . . . does not
optimize a first power generated from a first group of energy conversion
cells within a single solar panel independent of a second power generated
from a second group of energy conversion cells within the same solar
panel.” Appeal Br. 10.
As to Posbic, Appellant contends it lacks electronic circuitry in a
second hermetically sealed space that is outside the hermetically sealed
space between the first substrate sheet 5 and backing sheet 10. Appeal Br.
10 (citing Posbic Fig. 1). Referring to Posbic’s Figure 1, Appellant further
contends that Posbic does not teach electronic circuitry to “optimize a first
power generated from a first group of energy conversion cells within the
photovoltaic module 1 independent of a second power generated from a
second group of energy conversion cells within the photovoltaic module 1
. . . [because] the by-pass diodes 50 cannot optimize power.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant proffers further arguments in the Reply Brief, including that
the Examiner has conflated Sun’s integrated solar electric power generation
system 206 with a photovoltaic solar panel (Reply Br. 2), and that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of photovoltaic solar panel does not
encompass Sun’s integrated system 206 {id. at 3). Appellant also argues that
the entire solar electric power generation system of Sun cannot be laminated
and hermetically sealed to form a single photovoltaic solar panel. Reply
Br. 4.
Appellant’s argument that Sun discloses an array of solar panels, and
not solar cells within a solar panel, is not persuasive of reversible error.
10
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
Even if each string of solar cells 202 in Figure 2 of Sun is taken to be a
separate photovoltaic solar panel within the meaning of the claims, the
rejection stands as grounded on the combination of Sun and Posbic in which
the system was hermetically sealed between a first sheet and second sheet to
form a single photovoltaic panel. Ans. 11. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); See also In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is . . . what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”). As set forth in the combination, groups of solar
cells corresponding to the strings of solar cells 202 in Figure 2 of Sun are
groups of solar cells within a photovoltaic solar panel, even by Appellant’s
proffered definition. Combining those strings in a single unit hermetically
sealed between two sheets yields the photovolataic solar panel recited by the
claims.
As to the Examiner’s determination that the whole of the structure
depicted in Figure 2 of Sun is identified as a solar panel (Ans. 26) or meets
the broadest reasonable interpretation of a solar panel {id. at 27), we are not
persuaded of harmful error because the relied on combination of Sun and
Posbic, as discussed above, provides a single photovoltaic panel. “[T]he
burden of showing that the error is harmful normally falls upon the party
attacking the agency’s determination. In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009)).
On this record, because Appellant’s argument fails to address the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Sun and
11
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
Posbic, and that the resulting structure would have met the limitation of
being a solar panel, any such error is harmless.
Appellant’s argument that Sun’s system cannot be laminated and
hermetically sealed to form a single photovoltaic panel (Reply Br. 4), is no
more than an argument against bodily incorporating one structure into
another, and thus, is unpersuasive of reversible error, because it fails to
address what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Appellant’s argument further fails because “the
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill would
employ” in overcoming the difficulties within their level of skill. KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant’s argument that Posbic fails to teach or suggest electronic
circuitry in a second hermetically sealed space is fully addressed by the
Examiner, including in finding that Posbic’s Figure 1 discloses electronic
circuitry in a second hermetically sealed space (Ans. 27—28), which
Appellant fails to contest (see generally Reply Br.).
Appellant’s contention that Sun fails to optimize “a first power
generated from a first group of energy conversion cells within a single solar
panel independently from a second power generated from a second group of
energy conversion cells within the same solar panel” is not well founded.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s arguments grounded on Sun’s MPPT unit 206
only optimizing power for the entire solar array because it intakes a single
peak DC power output 224 are unpersuasive of reversible error, because
they fail to address the Examiner’s rejection grounded on the circuitry 220,
12
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
of which the MPPT unit 206 is but a part, and how the circuitry 220,
including switches 222, operate in the relied-on combination.
As to whether turning off a power is optimizing the power within the
meaning of the claims, we give claim terms the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). It is well established that “the PTO must
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification .... Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it
provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
Having considered the language, “optimizes the first power generated
from the first group of energy conversion cells,” and the Specification, we
determine that the claim does not exclude cutting off power because a power
level of zero may be preferable to a power otherwise outside an acceptable
range. Further, on this record, we are directed to no contrary definition. It
follows we are not apprised of reversible error in the rejection of claims 39
and 44.
As to claim 45, Appellant relies on essentially the same arguments as
for claims 39 and 44, as discussed above. Appeal Br. 12—13. Appellant
contends that Sun does not teach or suggest adjusting the voltage or current
of a first group of solar cells and adjusting the voltage or current of a second
group of solar cells within the same solar panel based on computations
13
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
performed by the electronic circuitry. Appeal Br. 12. Consistent with
Appellant’s argument, the phrase “operation parameters” is reasonably
interpreted to include the measured voltage and/or current of power from the
panel, as well as values set for operation of the panel. Spec. 1 88 (“The
power module can send the operation parameters back to the remote control
center for monitoring purposes.”). On this record, in light of the
Specification, operating a switch to turn off power from a solar cell string,
an adjustment of the voltage or current, is an adjustment of that string’s
operation parameters. The operation of Sun’s disclosed circuit, e.g., inverter
220 in Figure 2, in which the MPPT 206, by operating an associated switch
222, turns off power from a solar cell string in response to its voltage being
outside an accepted voltage range (see, e.g., Sun 125), likewise, reasonably
constitutes adjustment of operation parameters on the basis of computation
performed by electronic circuitry in the absence of any definition or
guidance in the Specification requiring more than the operation of the MPPT
as to the meaning of computation. Thus, operation of Sun’s circuit to
independently disconnect two solar cell strings in response to their
respective voltages being outside an accepted voltage range meets the
limitation. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of reversible error as to the
rejection of claim 45.
As to claims 47, 49, 50, 51, 54—56, and 60, Appellant also relies on
essentially the same arguments as 39 and 44, as discussed above. Appeal
Br. 13—14. Appellant contends that Sun does not teach or suggest electronic
circuitry independently receiving a first power from a first group of energy
conversion cells and a second power from a second group of energy
conversion cells and optimizing power generation from the photovoltaic
14
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
solar panel using the first power from the first group of energy conversion
cells and the second power from the second group of energy conversion
cells. As the circuitry 220 in Sun (see, e.g., Sun, Fig. 2) independently
receives power from solar cell strings 202 i_i0 and, if the received power falls
within the accepted voltage range, then uses merged power from the solar
cell strings to obtain suitable power (see, e.g., Sun 125), the limitation is
suggested by Sun. Appellant’s contentions grounded on the MPPT unit 206
itself rather than on the circuitry 220 that includes the MPPT (Appeal Br.
13—14) are further unpersuasive because they fail to address the rejection as
set forth by the Examiner.
As to all claims, Appellant further contends the Examiner has
reversibly erred in treating claim limitations as merely implying an intended
use rather than “an actual state of configuration.” Appeal Br. 14—15.
We discern no harmful error. The ground of rejection set forth by the
Examiner reasonably includes that the circuitry relied on to provide the
required function operates to provide that function, and, thus, includes
reliance on the circuitry in “an actual state of configuration.”
For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of claims 39, 44, 45,
47, 49-51, 54—56, and 60.
Sun in view of Posbic and Rotzoll — Claims 42, 43, 46, 48, 52, 53, 57,
and 59
Regarding claims 42, 43, 46, and 59, the Examiner relies on Rotzoll
for its disclosure of a photovoltaic solar panel, having a plurality of energy
conversion cell strings, each with a microinverter with MPPT circuitry
enabling independent adjustment for maximized power output. Ans. 17—19
(citing Rotzoll 25, 45).
15
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
As to claim 42, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been
obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
add to the photovoltaic solar panel of modified Sun a microinverter with
MPPT circuitry for each energy conversion cell string, as taught by Rotzoll,
to have the ability to adjust each energy conversion cell string independently
and achieve maximum power output.” Ans. 17—18.
Appellant contends error on the basis that Rutzoll teaches pairing
microinverters with PV modules to permit MPPT at a per PV module level
(quoting Rotzoll 19) and that the string inverters in Rotzoll, such as string
inverter 521 in Rotzell’s Figure 5, intake only a pair of DC wires 505, 506,
and thus “cannot adjust a first voltage associated with a first group of energy
conversion cells within a PV module and adjust a second voltage associated
within a second group of energy conversion cells within the same PV
module such that the second voltage is different from the first voltage.”
Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error because the
rejection as set forth by the Examiner is grounded on a combination in which
multiple energy conversion cell strings are included in the same photovoltaic
solar panel. Merck, 800 F.2d 1091 at 1097. Rotzoll’s teaching to use
separate MPPT units to control each PV module to detect the output power
and to adjust the load voltage so as to maximize the power available (Ans.
37 (citing Rotzoll 145)) suggests the same for independent energy
conversion cell strings in the relied on combination. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425
(“The test for obviousness is . . . what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); Cf.,
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into
16
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”).
As to claims 43, 46, and 59, the Examiner likewise concludes the
claims are obvious over the combination, adding that “each maximum power
point tracking circuit has the ability to optimize the particular energy
conversion cell string associated with it.” Ans. 18.
Appellant contends error on essentially the same purported deficiency
as proffered for claim 42. Appeal Br. 36-37.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. As found by the Examiner,
Rotzoll discloses a plurality of energy conversion cell strings which each
have a microinverter with MPPT circuitry. Ans. 36 (citing Rotzoll 25,
45, and Figs. 3—4). Including the relied on microinverters for each energy
conversion cell string in the combination for the same purpose of optimizing
power leads to the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Regarding claim 48, the Examiner also relies on Rotzoll for its
disclosure of voltage sensors in its microinverter enabling each energy
conversion cell string to be adjusted for maximized power output. Ans. 19-
20 (citing Rotzoll 25, 45). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add such a microinverter
with voltage sensor for each energy conversion string “to have the ability to
adjust each energy conversion cell string independently and achieve
maximum power output” and that, as so combined, “each voltage sensor has
the ability to sense the voltage of the particular energy conversion cell string
associated with it.” Ans. 20.
17
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
Appellant’s arguments as to claim 48 are grounded on the claim
requiring the electronic circuitry within the second hermetically sealed space
to include a first voltage sensor to sense the first voltage associated with a
first group of energy conversion cells and a second voltage sensor to sense
the second voltage associated with a second group of energy conversion
cells, where the circuitry and first and second groups of energy conversion
cells are within a single solar panel. Appeal Br. 15—17. Appellant contends
that “Rotzoll does not teach a microinverter connected to different groupings
of solar cells within a single solar panel,” but is instead directed to
arrangements with multiple PV modules (or solar panels) connected to each
other by DC wiring and placed in proximity to microinverters for converting
DC to AC from each of the PV modules. Appeal Br. 15—16. Appellant
contends, inter alia, that Rotzoll’s disclosure of the distributed inverter 410
coupled to a first photovoltaic module 401 and a second PV module 411
falls short because the PV modules are distinct from one another, and thus
are not within a single photovoltaic solar panel. Appeal Br. 16 (citing
Rotzoll 142). Appellant further contends that there is no mention in Rotzoll
of various materials argued to be “basic ingredients for making a solar panel
(or PV module) and specifically making the solar panel hermetically sealed.”
Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error because
they fail to address the relied on combination in which multiple energy
conversion cell strings are included in the same photovoltaic solar panel and
separate MPPT units, each with a voltage sensor, are used to monitor and
control each energy conversion cell string in the same manner as the MPPT
units are used in Rotzoll with respect to its PV modules. Merck, 800 F.2d at
18
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
1097 (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references).
The contended absence of materials in Rotzoll consistent with making
a hermetically sealed solar panel is, accordingly, of no persuasive import,
because the rejection is not based on bodily incorporating the structures
together in the combination.
Regarding claims 52, 53, and 57, the Examiner relies on Sun for
disclosing that output of the electronic circuitry can be adjusted based on a
sensed blackout condition. Ans. 20 (citing Sun 127). The Examiner relies
on Rotzoll’s circuitry with gateway 406, controlling the microinverter with
voltage sensor, as teaching a “remote control center” (claims 52, 53) and “a
second set of electronic circuits located entirely outside of the hermetically
sealed environment” (claim 57). Ans. 20—22 (citing Rotzoll || 25, 42, 43,
and 45). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have added the
“remote control center, as taught by Rotzoll, to have the ability to adjust
each energy conversion cell string independently and achieve maximum
power output.” Ans. 20—21, 22. The Examiner further determines that the
limitations of claims 52, 53, and 57 are thus met. Ans. 21, 22.
Appellant proffers no separate, substantive argument as to claims 52,
53, and 57, but relies on the dependency of the claims from claim 47, and on
its contended patentability.
Having not been persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 47, we are apprised of no reversible error here.
19
Appeal 2017-002910
Application 12/616,732
For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of claims 42, 43, 46,
48, 52, 53, 57, and 59 over Sun in view of Posbic and Rotzoll.
Sun in view of Posbic and Shaver — Claims 52, 53, and 57 and Sun in
view of Posbic and Mimura — claim 58
Appellant relies on the dependency of the claims from claim 47. As
the Examiner did not reversibly err in rejecting claim 47, as discussed above,
we are not apprised of reversible error in the rejections of claims 52, 53, 57,
and 58. Accordingly, we also sustain these rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claim 60 are
REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 39, and
42-60 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
20