Ex Parte Wayman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2018

12577423 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/577,423 10/12/2009 Elizabeth N. WAYMAN
74254 7590 05/09/2018
Okamoto & Benedicto LLP
P.O. Box 641330
San Jose, CA 95164-1330
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.
10031.006200 4242
EXAMINER
TRINH, THANH TRUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2018 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 ELIZABETH N. WAYMAN, CARL LENOX, and
ADAM DETRICK
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
Technology Center 1700
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 14. 3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed October 12, 2009
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated June 29, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed December 7, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's
Answer dated February 28, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
April 12, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SunPower Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1.
3 Claims 4---6 and 9-13 are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner.
Final Act. 1.
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to photovoltaic
module assemblies including, for example, a plurality of interconnected
photovoltaic cells in a laminate, and an external junction box attached to the
laminate, including leads and connectors, which allow the photovoltaic
modules to be interconnected electrically. Spec. 1, 11. 6-14.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, is representative of the claims on appeal.
1. A photovoltaic module assembly comprising:
a first photovoltaic laminate having a top face configured
to face toward sunlight, a bottom face and lateral sides, the first
photovoltaic laminate comprising a first plurality of solar cells
embedded within the first photovoltaic laminate and a first pin
terminal extended downward out of the bottom face of the first
photovoltaic laminate, the first pin terminal electrically
connected to a first solar cell which is among the first plurality
of solar cells;
a second photovoltaic laminate having a top face
configured to face toward the sunlight, a bottom face and lateral
sides, the second photovoltaic laminate comprising a second
plurality of solar cells embedded within the second photovoltaic
laminate and a second pin terminal extended downward out of
the bottom face of the second photovoltaic laminate, the second
pin terminal electrically connected to a second solar cell which
is among the second plurality of solar cells;
a single-piece frame member having a middle portion
extending along and between the lateral sides of the first and
second photovoltaic laminates and supporting each of the first
and second photovoltaic laminates; and
an environmentally-protected electrical junction box
integrally-formed with the single-piece frame member that
interconnects the first and second pin terminals of the first and
second photovoltaic laminates.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Bower et al.
(US 2003/0111103 Al, published June 19, 2003) ("Bower') in view of
Dargatz (US 2010/0139945 Al, published June 10, 2010). Final Act. 3-6;
Ans. 2.
The Examiner finds that Bower discloses all the components of
claim 1 's photovoltaic module assembly except: ( 1) a second photovoltaic
module (laminate), and (2) first and second pin terminals that act as an
electrical connection between photovoltaic laminates. Final Act. 3-5 ( citing
Bower Figs. 1, 2, 12-14). In addition, the Examiner finds that Bower does
not disclose a plurality of sockets in the electrical junction box, where the
first and second pin terminals of the photovoltaic laminates are configured to
be inserted into the sockets as in Appellants' claim 3. Final Act. 5.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Bower's Figure 13, an annotated
version of which is reproduced below, depicts photovoltaic module 12 that
includes a plurality of solar cells, contacts/jumpers 302 extending downward
out of the bottom face of photovoltaic module 12, power bar (frame) 218
supporting photovoltaic module 12, and a cavity of power bar 218 serving as
an environmentally-protected electrical junction box integrally formed with
power bar 218 that houses the electrical connections ( contacts/jumpers 302)
for the photovoltaic module. Id. at 4.
3
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
1·).
Photovoltaic
Module
Power Bar
--~ ', ,:~~
l.nse,rtlon/Contlcts
/Modu!e!lnverter Jumpers --,"
/ /
Cladding {Sunlight Resistati.t) ··"·'Y
Insulating
Mateliaf (OptionaO ))J.
Cocm munic.attons
Cable or Floor Optics
Grounding
Screw {when Required)
ROOF MOUNT
Annotated Figure 13 illustrates a roof mount embodiment of Bower's
photovoltaic building block.
With regard to a second photovoltaic laminate, the Examiner finds
that Bower teaches electrically and mechanically interconnecting
photovoltaic modules ( or laminates) into a complete photovoltaic array. Id.
at 4 ( citing Bower ,r 125). Based on this disclosure, the Examiner finds that
Bower suggests, or would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make, a
photovoltaic array that includes a second photovoltaic module like the first
photovoltaic module depicted in Bower's Figure 13 that includes a plurality
of solar cells and terminal connections so that the first and second
photovoltaic modules are electrically and mechanically interconnected.
Final Act. 5.
4
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
With regard to pin terminals and sockets, the Examiner finds that like
Bower, Dargatz teaches a plurality of photovoltaic panels (Fig. 1, PV
panel 150 comprising a plurality of PV modules 106) interconnected by
mounting rails (108) housing electrical connections (the cavity of the rails
functions as an electrical junction box). Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds
that Dargatz's Figure 6, reproduced below, teaches a photovoltaic panel
(Fig. 6, PV panel 150, or portion 118 of panel 150) with pin terminals (602)
extending downward from the bottom face of the photovoltaic panel. Id.
( citing Dargatz Figs. 6, 7).
10s-, so2 604
200
· ..;>;> ·\ ;·~ 206 '
;~m#Tf :t---- -:::~
''·~''·'"''f"' "" "" "'" ---------l . / .. ;~:.':, >: ?~ 202 602
3
"
(li~t====c~
118
,
204
FIG. 6
Figure 6 shows one embodiment for coupling an inverter (118) to a
mounting rail (108) in accordance with Dargatz's invention.
In addition, the Examiner finds that Dargatz' s electrical junction box
( the cavity of the rails 108) includes a plurality of conductors/bus bars
(sockets) (204) such that the pin terminals (608) from the photovoltaic panel
(PV panel 150, and more specifically from portion 118 of panel 150) are
5
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
configured to be inserted into the sockets (204), coupling the output power
of the inverter (118) to the bus bars (204). Id.; see also Dargatz ,r 33.
The Examiner finds that one skilled in the art would have been led,
based on Dargatz, to modify Bower's photovoltaic array, which contains two
photovoltaic modules and a single-piece frame member having a middle
portion extending along and between the lateral sides of the first and second
photovoltaic modules, by using pin terminals and sockets in the electrical
junction box ( or the cavity of the power rail) so that the pin terminals extend
downward from the bottom face of the photovoltaic modules and are
inserted into sockets in the electrical junction box ( or the cavity of the power
rail), to allow for proper positioning of the pins and sockets in the correct
locations, and to ensure electrical connection between the inverter and bus.
Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue that "the combination of Bower and Dargatz does
not teach or suggest a frame member that supports and extends between first
and second laminates." Appeal Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants argue that
Bower's Figures 12, 13, and 14 depict an AC photovoltaic building block for
a single module, not a multiple module system. Id. at 4. Additionally,
Appellants argue that Bower teaches that the power bar, for example as
shown in Bower's Figure 12 (Power Bar 218), must be on an outside
perimeter of AC photovoltaic building block 200, and thus, fails to suggest a
power bar that extends between two laminates. Id. at 5---6.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. Bower's Figure 12, annotated, is reproduced below.
6
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
Power Bar..,,,--
0 ,l ! r .,.
// !/
,'
Sunshine
lnterconn~r.1
····""- B.:r "?.. ,">'2 ..
AC Photovoltaic Building Block (Framed Option)
Annotated Bower's Figure 12 shows a framed AC PV Building
Block 200.
Although Bower's Figure 12 depicts a single AC photovoltaic
building block, Bower teaches that its building blocks can be used in a
photovoltaic array, which includes more than one photovoltaic module.
Bower ,r,r 40, 125. In addition, Bower teaches that a power bar, for example,
as shown in Bower's Figure 12, "couples to 'Interconnect Bars' and/or other
'Power Bars' ... in a manner that electrically and mechanically
interconnects the photovoltaic modules into a complete photovoltaic array.
Id. ,r 125; see also id. ,r 116 (describing the "Power Bar" and "Interconnect
Bar" as frame members). In fact, Appellants acknowledge that "a power bar
or power rail, being inherently an electrical component, can be used to
electrically connect multiple modules." Reply Br. 2. Thus, a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Bower would have
7
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
suggested forming a photovoltaic array by interconnecting two photovoltaic
modules (12) as depicted in Bower's Figure 12, and using the power bar or
the power rail (218) to form a frame member supporting each of the
photovoltaic modules, the frame "having a middle portion extending along
and between the lateral sides of' the first and second photovoltaic modules
(laminates) to support the first and second modules (laminates). Ans. 6.
Appellants argue that "there is no teaching or suggestion in Bower
and Dargatz to have the pins extend out of the bottom face of a photovoltaic
module as recited in claim 1." Reply Br. 6; Appeal Br. 8. Specifically,
Appellants argue that rather than disclosing pins, Bower discloses wired
connections, which do not have alignment or contact problems. Reply Br. 5.
Appellants argue that Dargatz does not cure the deficiencies of Bower
because Dargatz' Figure 6, reproduced above, teaches pins 602 extending
from inverter 118, not from PV module (laminate) 120. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided any articulated
reasoning why pins and sockets provide better electrical connection
compared to simple hard wiring as used in Bower. Reply Br. 6. In addition,
Appellants argue that Dargatz uses pins to penetrate the insulative material
encapsulating the matching conductors, and there is no such penetration
issue in Bower. Id. Appellants also argue that the Examiner does not
address how Dargatz's pins and sockets will be incorporated in Bower's
photovoltaic array. Id.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. As explained in the Answer, the Examiner finds that
Bower teaches an electrical terminal extending downward out of the bottom
of its photovoltaic modules (laminates), electrically connecting the AC bus
8
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
to the inverter. Ans. 6 ( citing Bower Figs. 13, 14 ); see also Bower ,r 111.
The Examiner finds that Dargatz teaches a photovoltaic system that uses
pins ( or pin terminals) and sockets in the electrical junction box ( or the
cavity of the power rail) to provide an electrical connection between a bus
and an inverter. Ans. 7. Dargatz teaches that the pin and socket connection
allows the pins to be aligned properly and positioned in correct locations to
ensure electrical connections. Dargatz ,r,r 33, 35. Thus, a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led, based on Dargatz, to modify Bower's photovoltaic
module by using pin terminals and sockets in the electrical junction box ( or
the cavity of the power bar or the power rail) so that the pin terminals extend
down from the bottom face of the photovoltaic modules (laminates) to be
inserted in the sockets in the electrical junction box ( or the cavity of the
power bar or the power rail) to provide an electrical connection between the
bus and the inverter. Ans. 7.
Additionally, because Bower's wiring and Dargatz's pin terminals and
sockets facilitate an electrical connection between a bus and an inverter in a
photovoltaic system, we agree with the Examiner that using pin terminals
and sockets in Bower's photovoltaic array would be nothing more than the
predictable use of Dargatz's pin terminals and sockets in accordance with
their established function as electrical connectors. Id. at 7-8; see KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (assessing the obviousness of
claims to a combination of prior art elements by asking "whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions."). The manner of how to incorporate
Dargatz's pin terminals and sockets into Bower's photovoltaic array would
9
Appeal2017-007509
Application 12/577,423
have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Because Appellants' arguments do not identify reversible error, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 14 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).
AFFIRMED
10