KING SAUD UNIVERSITYDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 8, 20202019004265 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2020) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation