Ex Parte Rose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2015

11998507 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2015)

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.
11/998,507 11/30/2007 Douglas Rose 007923.P006 6947
84372 7590 01/12/2015
SunPower/ BSTZ
Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
DAM, DUSTIN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1758
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2015 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 DOUGLAS ROSE
and THOMAS PHU
____________

Appeal 2013-001772
Application 11/998,507
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner has finally rejected claims 1‒11, 19, and 20 of
Application 11/998,507 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Appellants
seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The ’507 Application describes busbar components for photovoltaic
modules. Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, the busbar components are for use with
back side contact solar cell arrays. Spec. ¶¶ 21‒22.
Appeal 2013-001772
Application 11/998,507
2
Claim 1 is the only independent claim in the ’507 Application and is
reproduced below:
1. A photovoltaic (PV) module, comprising:
a first back contact PV cell;
a first bus bar component coupled to the first PV cell at a
back side of the PV module;
a second back contact PV cell; and
a second bus bar component, distinct from the first bus
bar component, coupled to the second PV cell at the back side
of each PV cell, wherein the first busbar component is coupled
with the second busbar component with at least a first
connection joint suitable to function as a pivot point during
coupling of the first and second busbar components, and
wherein both the first and second bus bar components each
comprise an elongate body with one or more bus tabs disposed
along a first side of the elongate body but no bus tabs disposed
along an opposing second side of the elongate body.
(App. Br. 14 (Claims App’x).)
REJECTION
Claims 1‒11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Aschenbrenner1 and Sumal.2 FR 3.

1 US Patent Application Publication 2005/0268959 A1, published December
8, 2005.
2 US Patent No. 4,616506, issued October 14, 1986.
Appeal 2013-001772
Application 11/998,507
3
DISCUSSION
We affirm for the reasons set forth in the Final Rejection and the
Examiner’s Answer, which we hereby adopt. We add the following for
emphasis.
Appellants provide little in the way of substantive argument for
reversal of the Examiner’s rejection. After providing descriptions of the
claimed invention and the apparatus described in Aschenbrenner (App. Br.
7‒9), Appellants argue that
The Final Office Action mailed January 19, 2012 equates
interconnect assemblies 110 of Aschenbrenner to the
Appellants’ claimed “busbar component.” (See Final Office
Action mailed January 19, 2012, p. 3, section 6.) However,
even if the interconnect assemblies 110 of Aschenbrenner could
be viewed as busbar components, they do not have an elongate
body with one or more bus tabs disposed along a first side of
the elongate body but no bus tabs disposed along an opposing
second side of the elongate body, as required by Appellants’
claims 1‒11, 19 and 20.
(Id. at 10.) This argument is repeated, almost verbatim, in Appellants’
Reply Brief. (Reply Br. 1‒2).
Appellants argument does not suffice to demonstrate reversible error
in the Examiner’s finding of fact and conclusions. In the Final Rejection,
the Examiner defined the term “busbar component,” explained how
Aschenbrenner’s interconnect assemblies fell within that definition, and
further found that Aschenbrenner described the interconnect assembly’s tabs
as being located on one side of the interconnect assembly and not on a
second, opposing side of the interconnect assembly. FR 3‒5. Appellants
have not provided an alternative construction of the term “busbar
component” that does not encompass Aschenbrenner’s interconnect
assemblies, nor have they demonstrated that the Examiner’s construction is
Appeal 2013-001772
Application 11/998,507
4
unreasonably broad. Furthermore, although Appellants never expressly say
so, we understand them to be arguing that the claimed first and second sides
of the elongate body of the busbar components should be construed to
exclude Aschenbrenner’s structure. The Examiner correctly found that
Aschenbrenner’s tabs are located on the back side of the interconnect
assembly and not on the opposing front side. Appellants have not explained
why their claims do not embrace such a structure.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1‒
11, 19, and 20 of the ’507 Application.

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

dm