KING SAUD UNIVERSITY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 8, 2020

15097264 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2020)

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.
15/097,264 04/12/2016 MANAL AHMED GASMELSEED AWAD 32693.86 8019
37833 7590 05/08/2020
Richard C. Litman
Nath, Goldberg & Meyer
112 S. West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
GARDNER, SHANNON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2020 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):
mbashah@nathlaw.com
uspto@4patent.com
uspto@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANAL AHMED GASMELSEED AWAD, AWATIF AHMED
HENDI, KHALID MUSTAFA OSMAN ORTASHI, NAWAL AHMAD
ABDU MADKHALI, and AISHA SALAH BADWELAN
Appeal 2019-004265
Application 15/097,264
Technology Center 1700

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision twice rejecting claims 1–4.3
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed April 12, 2016 (“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action dated May 16, 2018
(“Non-Final”); Appeal Brief filed November 13, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer dated March 8, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed
May 7, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor:
King Saud University. Appeal Br. 3.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-004265
Application 15/097,264

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dye-sensitized solar panel. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A dye-sensitized solar panel, comprising:
a first transparent substrate having opposed inner and
outer surfaces;
a working electrode mounted on the inner surface of the
first transparent substrate, the working electrode comprising:
a metal electrode;
a metal oxide layer, said metal oxide layer comprising
zinc oxide nanoparticles, the zinc oxide nanoparticles being
synthesized using B. vulgaris subsp. cicla extract as a reducing
agent; and
an organic photosensitizing dye supported on the metal
oxide layer, wherein the organic photosensitizing dye includes
B. vulgaris subsp. cicla dye;
a second transparent substrate having opposed inner and
outer surfaces;
a counter electrode mounted on the inner surface of the
second transparent substrate, the counter electrode comprising a
conductive layer; and
an electrolyte sandwiched between the working electrode
and the counter electrode.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:

Name Reference Date
Lidow US 6,018,124 Jan. 25, 2000
Bills US 2014/0313574 A1 Oct. 23, 2014
Appeal 2019-004265
Application 15/097,264

3
Giuseppe Calogero et al., Anthocyanins and Betalains as Light-Harvesting
Pigments for Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells, 86 Solar Energy, 1563–1575 (2012)
(“Calogero”)
Angel Ramon Hernández-Martinez et al., Stabilized Conversion Efficiency
and Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells from Beta vulgaris Pigment, 14 Int. J. Mol.
Sci. 4081–4093 (2013) (“Martinez”)
Azza A. Bakry et al., Utilization of Swiss Chard as Functional Food, 12
Nature & Sci., 104–111 (2014) (“Bakry”)

REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Martinez in view of Bills and Bakry.
2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martinez in view of Bills, Bakry, and Calogero.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Martinez in view of Bills, Bakry, and Lidow.
OPINION
The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings that the
ordinary artisan would have combined the teachings of Martinez and Bills,
and that such combination would have resulted in the claim 1, dye-
sensitized, solar panel except for nanoparticles “synthesized using B.
vulgaris subsp. cicla extract as a reducing agent”4 and “an organic
photosensitizing dye supported on [a] metal oxide layer, . . . the organic
photosensitizing dye includ[ing] B. vulgaris subsp. cicla dye” (claim 1).
Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner found that Martinez discloses an organic
photosensitizing dye that includes B. vulgaris extract (BVE). Non-Final 4.

4 As determined by the Examiner (Non-Final 4–5), this is a product-by-
process limitation.
Appeal 2019-004265
Application 15/097,264

4
Martinez discloses that “[n]atural pigments extracted from fruits and
vegetables, such as chlorophyll and anthocyanins, have been extensively
investigated as Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells (DSSCs) sensitizers.” Martinez
4082 (internal citations omitted). Martinez discloses that betalain, a natural
pigment, has favorable light absorbing and antioxidant properties, and that
“[t]he efficiencies of solar energy conversion by betalains . . . from beetroot
(Beta vulgaris), . . . [are] slightly higher” than the efficiencies of
anthocyanins. Id.
According to Martinez, a problem with using betalains as DSSC
sensitizers is that they degrade quickly, thereby shortening the DSSC’s
lifetime. Martinez 4082. Martinez describes the use of
Tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) as a photodegradation-inhibiting agent to
decrease UV degradation and increase DSSC lifetime. Id. Martinez
conducted experimental testing of BVE and BVE/TEOS using pigment from
fresh beetroots (Beta vulgaris L. Var Rubra). Id. at 4089–91. Martinez
reported that “[a] significant high cell stability was found using BVE/TEOS
dye, compared to BVE dye; this provides solar cells with large lifetimes.” Id.
at 4091.
The Examiner found that Bakry discloses Swiss chard (B. vulgaris
subsp. cicla) comprising phenolic compounds, betalains and flavonoids.
Non-Final 5 (citing Bakry Abstract, Introduction (3rd para.)). The Examiner
determined that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to try the
subspecies cicla of the BVE genus in the . . . [Martinez-Bills dye-sensitized,
solar panel] with a reasonable expectation of success as the subspecies
contains the components relied upon in [Martinez].” Id.
Appeal 2019-004265
Application 15/097,264

5
The Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan, a DSSC designer,
would not have looked to Bakry’s disclosure, because Bakry was concerned
with the use of Swiss chard as a functional food and has no disclosure
regarding its use in DSSCs. Appeal Br. 11. If it is the Appellant’s contention
that Bakry is non-analogous art, we disagree. The inventors were concerned
with finding a natural photosensitizer for use in a DSSC. See Spec. ¶ 3.
Martinez discloses that betalains derived from Beta vulgaris have favorable
light absorbing properties (Martinez 4082) and Bakry discloses that Swiss
chard is a member of the species Beta vulgaris (Bakry Abstract). The
inventor has not explained persuasively why Bakry would not have been
“reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor[s
were] involved,” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The Appellant explains that “the generic for almost all beet cultivars
(like chard) is Beta vulgaris; but the subspecies comprise adanensis,
mapitima, and vulgaris and subspecies under vulgaris include
subsp.altissima, subsp.cicla, subsp.flavesceas, subsp.conditiva, and
subsp.crassa.” Appeal Br. 12. The Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan
would have recognized that each of these varieties has specific properties,
characteristics, and attributes, including color which is “of great importance”
in DSSCs. Id. In support of this argument, the Appellant cites Frese (L.
Frese, Variation Patterns in a Leaf Beet (Beta vulgaris, Chenopodiaceae)
Germplasm Collection, 176 Pl. Syst. Evol., 1–10 (1991)), included in the
Appeal Brief Evidence Appendix. Appeal Br. 12. The Appellant directs us to
Frese Table 3 as evidence that “the leaf color, petiole color and a wide
variety of other properties differ between Group A (provar vulgaris sensu
Appeal 2019-004265
Application 15/097,264

6
Helm), which refers to chards similar to Beta vulgaris L. var. flavescens, and
Groups B and C, which contain other types of chard, including the presently
claimed Beta vulgaris subsp. cicla.” Id. The Appellant thus contends that the
Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support a finding that the
ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using
B. vulgaris subsp. cicla in a DSSC. Id.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for
the reasons explained in the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 7–10. Although
Martinez conducted experiments using pigment from fresh beetroots (Beta
vulgaris L. Var Rubra), as noted by the Examiner, Martinez refers to
betalains from the Beta vulgaris species in general as useful DSSC
sensitizers. Ans. 7. In other words, the Appellant has not argued
convincingly that Martinez’s findings as to the efficacy of BVE and
BVE/TEOS dyes in DSSCs are limited to Beta vulgaris L. Var Rubra. The
Appellant argues Frese Table 3 evidences that the properties of the Beta
vulgaris subspecies differ. The Appellant has not explained, however, why
the Examiner erred in finding that the ordinary artisan would have selected
B. vulgaris subsp. cicla because it contains the same compounds, e.g.,
betalains, that Martinez identifies as useful DSSC sensitizers. See generally
Appeal Br. 8–12; see also Reply Br. 6–8. Nor has the Appellant identified
unexpected results in the use of B. vulgaris subsp. cicla. See generally, e.g.,
Spec.
Any additional arguments made by the Appellant, but not discussed
explicitly in this Decision are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the reasons explained in the Final
Office Action and the Answer. The Appellant relies on the same arguments
Appeal 2019-004265
Application 15/097,264

7
in support of patentability of claims 2–4. See Appeal Br. 8. Therefore, we
sustain all three grounds of rejection for the reasons discussed above.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Martinez, Bills, Bakry 1
2, 3 103 Martinez, Bills, Bakry, Calogero 2, 3
4 103 Martinez, Bills, Bakry, Lidow 4
Overall
Outcome:
1–4

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).
AFFIRMED