Hamad Alteneiji

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2021

2020004476 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2021)

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.
14/491,759 09/19/2014 Hamad Musabeh Ahmed Saif Alteneiji 0249.0004 9720
39878 7590 07/15/2021
MH2 TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP, LLP
TIMOTHY M. HSIEH
1951 KIDWELL DRIVE
SUITE 310
TYSONS CORNER, VA 22182
EXAMINER
MARTIN, BETHANY LAMBRIGHT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2021 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):
docketing@mh2law.com
khicks@mh2law.com
lgalvin@mh2law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAMAD MUSABEH AHMED SAIF ALTENEIJI
Appeal 2020-004476
Application 14/491,759
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 7–9, 11, 27–30, 32, 332, and 35.
See Final Act. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant does not identify the real party in interest in the Appeal
Brief.
2 It is harmless error that the Examiner omitted claim 33 and included
cancelled claim 34 in the statement of the final rejection (Final Act. 4), as
claim 33 is addressed in the rejection (Final Act. 15). It is also harmless
error that the Examiner omitted claim 11 from the listing on the front page
of the Final Action.
Appeal 2020-004476
Application 14/491,759

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dynamic photovoltaic module. Claim 1,
reproduced below (emphasis added), is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A dynamic photovoltaic module having a module surface
configured to be exposed to sun light, a module voltage and a
module current, the photovoltaic module comprising
a plurality of cell stacks configured adjacently to each
other throughout the module surface and connected in series
therebetween, each cell stack among said cell stacks has a cell
stack surface comprising a plurality of photovoltaic cells of equal
size configured adjacently to each other throughout the cell stack
surface and connected in parallel therebetween with balancing
bus-bars for maintaining equal voltage across all the plurality of
photovoltaic cells in all the cell stacks, where each cell stack
among said cell stacks has a cell stack voltage and a cell stack
current and each photovoltaic cell among said photovoltaic cells
has a cell voltage and a cell current such that total voltage inside
the module is equal to the module voltage and total current inside
the module is equal to the module current, wherein all of the cell
stacks among said cell stacks comprises equal number of
photovoltaic cells having a same cell voltage and cell current, the
number of photovoltaic cells being equal to the quotient of the
module current and the cell current and the number of cell stacks
in the module being equal to the quotient of the module voltage
and the cell voltage and each photovoltaic cell of the each cell
stack has a cell width and a cell length, and wherein a count of
photovoltaic cells in each cell stack is equal to a quotient of the
cell length and the cell width; and
at least one bypass diode in parallel connection between
the cell stacks in order to bypass current around cell stacks
experiencing a current mismatch effect.
(Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.)
Appeal 2020-004476
Application 14/491,759

3
Independent claim 33 is directed to a dynamic photovoltaic
module, similar to that of claim 1. (Id. at 19‒20).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Kare US 2009/0101194 A1 Apr. 23, 2009
Cummings US 2010/0224232 A1 Sept. 9, 2010
Meakin US 2011/0083716 A1 Apr. 14, 2011
Nakamura US 2012/0234375 A1 Sept. 20, 2012
Moslehi US 2014/0060610 A1 Mar. 6, 2014
Morad US 2014/0124014 A1 May 8, 2014
Battery University, Learn how to arrange batteries to increase voltage or gain higher load
currents (2015)
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 4, 7–9, 11, 27–30, 33 103 Kare, Meakin,
Moslehi, Morad,
Nakamura, Battery
University
5, 32, 35 103 Kare, Meakin, Moslehi,
Morad, Nakamura
Battery, Cummings
OPINION
After considering the evidence presented in this appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential), cited with approval in 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
Appeal 2020-004476
Application 14/491,759

4
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We sustain the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer.
The Appellant presents arguments for independent claims 1 and 33.
Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), the remaining
claims on appeal will stand or fall with the independent claim from which
they depend. For the purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 as
representative, and decide the propriety of the rejection of claims 4, 5, 7–9,
27–30, 32, 33, and 35 based on claim 1 alone.
Appellant’s primary argument is directed to the failure of the prior art
to recognize the relationship between the quotient of the length and area of
the photovoltaic (PV) cell size and the count of PV cells in a cell stack
(Appeal Br. 10). Appellant contends that Nakamura does not teach a
plurality of cell stacks. Id. Appellant further submits that Kare does not
recognize the relationship between the count of PV cells in a cell stack and
the dimensions of the individual PV cell (Appeal Br. 13).
The Examiner relies upon Kare to teach the multiplicity of PV cells in
each cell stack (Final Act. 5). Nakamura teaches that the area of the PV cells
can be adjusted to maximize efficiency (Final Act. 10). The Examiner
concludes that one of ordinary skill would have been able to optimize the
length and width of the PV cells to optimize the current path and reduce
current losses (Id.; see Nakamura ¶ 73). The Examiner further notes that
Appellant has failed to provide any convincing arguments or evidence of
unexpected results attributed to the claimed relationship between the PV cell
size and number of PV cells to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness set
forth (Ans. 32‒33).
Appeal 2020-004476
Application 14/491,759

5
We are in agreement with the Examiner that the Appellant does not
point us to any arguments or evidence of criticality of the claimed
relationship between the cell length and cell width. Thus, the instant
invention appears to be no more than a predictable use of existing PV
module technology. It is also readily apparent to one of ordinary skill from
the applied prior art that the size, i.e., length and width, of the PV cells, will
affect the overall efficiency of the module. “A recognition in the prior art
that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable
result-effective.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). It is well settled that, generally speaking, it would have been
obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even
optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (where the difference between the claimed
invention and the prior art is some range, 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); see also In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456
(CCPA 1955). Appellant does not direct us to any evidence of criticality of
the claimed quotient of the cell length and cell width being equal to the
number of PV cells in each cell stack. While the Specification provides a
number of Examples (e.g., ¶¶ 108–111), there are no comparative showings
with PV cells of different dimensions or different numbers of PV cells in the
cell stacks to show the significance or criticality of the recited quotient being
equal to the number of PV cells in each cell stack.
Further, it has been generally held that ordinarily changes in sizes or
shapes of known elements are within the level of skill in that art, especially
Appeal 2020-004476
Application 14/491,759

6
in the absence of unexpected results or criticality. Cf. Gardner v. TEC Sys.,
Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that, where the only
difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative
dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative
dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the
claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see
also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 676 (CCPA 1966) (change in shape
ordinarily prima facie obvious). In the absence of a showing of criticality,
the claimed length and width of the PV cells are considered to be no more
than a recitation of relative dimensions without more. Thus, Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant additionally asserts that Kare teaches a bypass diode around
one cell stack only, not a bypass diode between cell stacks to bypass current
around cell stacks (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant points to Figure 14 of Kare for
support. Id. However, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings
that Kare allows for various permutations of the bypass diode (Ans. 14‒15;
see Kare ¶ 144; no reply brief has been filed). Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545
F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (“[T]he fact that a specific [embodiment] is
taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art,
including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.”); In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.l (CCPA 1982) (A prior art reference’s
disclosure is not limited to its examples). Therefore, since Kare discusses
multiple arrangements of the bypass diode, including sets of devices
collectively coupled with a bypass diode (Kare ¶ 144), the disclosure as a
Appeal 2020-004476
Application 14/491,759

7
whole would have suggested at least one bypass diode in parallel connection
between the cell stacks as claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7–9,
11, 27–30, and 33. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5, 32,
and 35, which Appellant does not separately argue even though claims 5, 32,
and 35 were separately rejected (Appeal Br. 9).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7–9,
11, 27–30,
33
103 Kare, Meakin,
Moslehi, Morad,
Nakamura, Battery
University
1, 4, 7–9,
11, 27–30,
33

5, 32, 35 103 Kare, Meakin,
Moslehi, Morad,
Nakamura
Battery, Cummings
5, 32, 35
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 5, 7–9,
11, 27–30,
32, 33, 35

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED