Ex Parte SimonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201311497755 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/497,755 08/02/2006 Daniel Simon 7314 7590 06/26/2013 Clifford H. Kraft 320 Robin Hill Dr. Naperville, IL 60540 EXAMINER PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2013 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 DANIEL SIMON ____________________ Appeal 2011-004105 Application 11/497,755 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004105 Application 11/497,755 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-7 and 21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The rejected claims are directed to a solar collector for maximizing collection of useful sunlight. Claims 1 and 21 are independent claims. EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A solar collector for maximizing collection of useful sunlight, comprising: a) an enclosure with four sides and a transparent cover that protects interior surfaces from elements (other than sunlight); b) at least one light collecting surface mounted at a 45 degree angle to the transparent cover; c) at least one reflective surface mounted adjacent and perpendicular to said light collecting surface such that said reflective surface also forms a 45 degree angle with said transparent cover, said light collecting surface and said reflective surface being approximately of same length forming a V- shape wherein said V-shape forms an approximate 90 degree angle. 1 Our decision will refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed August 2, 2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 30, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 6, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 30, 2010). Appeal 2011-004105 Application 11/497,755 3 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Colehower (US 3,419,434, iss. Dec. 31, 1968) in view of O’Brien (US 4,867,134, iss. Sep. 19, 1989). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 is rejected as obvious over a combination of Colehower and O’Brien. Appellant first argues neither of these references teaches or suggests the limitations at least one light collecting surface mounted at a 45 degree angle to the transparent cover; [and] . . . at least one reflective surface mounted adjacent and perpendicular to said light collecting surface such that said reflective surface also forms a 45 degree angle with said transparent cover, said light collecting surface and said reflective surface being approximately of same length forming a V- shape[,] wherein said V-shape forms an approximate 90 degree angle (emphasis added). In particular, Appellant argues the specific angles are not taught or suggested (App. Br. 7, see also App. Br. 11). In response, the Examiner states Colehower teaches light collecting and reflective surfaces mounted at angles relative to a top surface and forming a V-shape, and that it would be obvious to place a transparent cover taught by O’Brien over the top surface of Colehower (Ans. 4-6). The Examiner concedes Colehower does not disclose the specific angles recited in claim 1, but states it would have been obvious to modify the angles shown in Colehower to be the same Appeal 2011-004105 Application 11/497,755 4 as those claimed, to achieve the desired result of maximizing collection of sunlight (id.). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Colehower does not teach or suggest the claimed angles for the light collecting and reflective surfaces. We note that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable (in this case, the optimum angle for the light collecting and reflective surfaces) is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). As stated in In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996): This court and its predecessors have long held, however, that even though applicant’s modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art, unless the claimed ranges “produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” Additionally, as stated in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990): The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . These cases have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range [citations omitted]. Appeal 2011-004105 Application 11/497,755 5 In the present case, however, Appellant has not established that the claimed angles produce unexpected results. On the contrary, it is expected that the angles of the light collecting and reflective surfaces may be varied to control the amount of sunlight collected by a solar collector. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to optimize the angle of the light collecting and reflective surfaces. Thus, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument. To the extent that Appellant argues it would not be obvious to place the transparent cover taught by O’Brien on the solar collector of Colehower, we do not find this argument persuasive (App. Br. 8, and 9-10). Appellant has not submitted evidence or presented arguments sufficient to rebut the Examiner’s statement that it would be obvious to use the cover to prevent debris from falling into the solar collector (Ans. 6). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Appellant does not submit separate arguments for the patentability of independent claim 21. Thus, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 21. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, each of which depends from claim 1, since Appellant does not argue any of these claims separately. Appeal 2011-004105 Application 11/497,755 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 21 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation