Ex Parte Perryman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

13417133 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/417,133 03/09/2012
94165 7590 05/25/2018
LeonardPatel PC
9891 Irvine Center Drive
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Virgil Dewitt Perryman
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.
1624.0003 9465
EXAMINER
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2018 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@leonardpatel.com
spatel@leonardpatel.com
mleonard@leonardpatel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIRGIL DEWITT PERRYMAN
Appeal2017-008965
Application 13/417, 133
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a solar energy
collection system that is used "to collect[] and stor[ e] energy from photons
from various spectra, including infrared." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is the sole
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Virgil Dewitt
Perryman. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008965
Application 13/417, 133
independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a reflector configured to reflect and focus a majority of
solar energy from visible light and infrared spectra, the reflector
coated with a film comprising gold and at least one other metal,
the at least one other metal reflects a majority of visible light, the
reflector having a reflectance across the infrared spectrum of
greater than 98%; and
a light trap configured to receive concentrated solar energy
from the reflector, wherein
the light trap comprises a solid black body that is
configured to absorb a majority of the concentrated visible light
and infrared energy and convert the absorbed energy into thermal
energy.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 21, and 22 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Atkinson, Jr. (US 4,286,581, iss. Sept. 1,
1981) (hereinafter "Atkinson"), Kaufman, Sr. (US 4, 148,300,
iss. Apr. 10, 1979) (hereinafter "Kaufman"), and Maruko
(US 4,439,020, iss. Mar. 27, 1984);
II. claims 2 and 3 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Atkinson, Kaufman, Maruko, and Blevins
(US 2010/0031954 Al, iss. Feb. 11, 2010); and
III. claim 8 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Atkinson,
Kaufman, Maruko, and E. Randich et al., Chemically Vapor
2
Appeal2017-008965
Application 13/417, 133
Deposited ZrB2 As A Selective Solar Absorber*, Thin Solid
Films, 83, General Film Behaviour, (1981 ), pp. 393-398.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claim 1 is in error
because, among other reasons, "Atkinson is not amenable to combination
with Kaufman as proposed" in order to provide the claimed solid black
body. Appeal Br. 22; see also id. at 19-23. Based on our review of the
record, including the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Final Office
Action and Examiner's Answer, we agree with Appellant. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of its dependent claims 4, 5,
7, 21, and 22 rejected with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that although Atkinson discloses a black body,
Atkinson does not disclose a solid black body, as claimed. See, e.g.,
Answer 3 ("Atkinson fails to explicitly teach ... a solid black body.").
Although not entirely clear, the Examiner apparently relies on Kaufman's
"black coated piping" of heat exchanger 102 to disclose the claimed solid
black body. Id. at 4 ("Kaufman teaches a solar radiation energy concentrator
wherein the black body comprises a black coated piping body for absorbing
incident solar radiation (see Kaufman Fig. 5, element 102).") (italics added).
As described in Appellant's Specification, "a black body ... is configured to
absorb a majority of the concentrated visible light and infrared energy and
convert the absorbed energy into thermal energy." Spec. ,-r 5; see also, e.g.,
id. ,-r 23. As the name at least suggests, however, "[h]eat exchanger 102 of
Kaufman does not store heat, but[,] rather[,] transfers heat, as heat
3
Appeal2017-008965
Application 13/417, 133
exchangers are designed to do." Appeal Br. 22. The Examiner does not
address Appellant's argument in the Examiner's Answer. Thus, based on
our review, we determine that the Examiner does not support adequately the
finding that Kaufman's heat exchanger 102 discloses a solid black body, as
the claim term is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Notwithstanding the above discussion, we agree with Appellant that
even if Kaufman discloses a solid black body, the Examiner does not
establish that it would have been obvious to replace Atkinson's black body
with a solid black body. As Appellant points out, "Atkinson relies on pipes,
valves, pressure, and the presence of a fluid to function." Appeal Br. 22; see
also id. at 22-23. Further, Atkinson describes reasons for using, as well as
advantages resulting from using, a non-solid black body/fluid system. See
id. Still further, we agree with Appellant that the substitution is more than
simply using a solid black body in place of Atkinson's non-solid black body.
Conversely, the Examiner's stated reason for using Kaufman's solid
black body in place of Atkinson's black body is the Examiner's "belie[fJ the
apparatus of Atkinson [is] capable of at least one operation," presumably
before self-destructing for the reasons argued on page 23 of Appellant's
Appeal Brief, "with [Kaufman's] solid black body configuration."
Answer 11. In view of the above-discussed structural and functional
differences between Atkinson and Kaufman, the Examiner does not provide
the required articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning sufficient to
establish that it would have been obvious to use a solid black body in
Atkinson. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
4
Appeal2017-008965
Application 13/417, 133
Rejections II and III
Each of claims 2, 3, and 8 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does
not rely on any other reference to remedy the above-discussed deficiencies
in claim 1 's rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3,
and 8.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-5,
7, 8, 21, and 22.
REVERSED
5