Vasylyev, Sergiy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 10, 2020

15584727 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 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.
15/584,727 05/02/2017 Sergiy Vasylyev 1360
25945 7590 04/10/2020
SERGIY VASYLYEV
3204 East Pintail Way
ELK GROVE, CA 95757
EXAMINER
TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2020 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):
svasilyev@yahoo.com
svasylyev@svvti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGIY VASYLYEV
Appeal 2019-003438
Application 15/584,727
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

RANGE, 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 21–40, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SVV
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS INC. (DBA LUCENT OPTICS). Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003438
Application 15/584,727

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to collecting light from a
large surface area and trapping light to increase the optical path through light
absorbing material. Spec. ¶ 6. In particular, the invention relates to
enhancing light trapping in, for example, photovoltaic solar panels. Id.
Claim 21 is the only independent claim on appeal and is illustrative:
21. [An] optical article for redistributing light,
comprising:
a planar flexible sheet of an optically transmissive material
having a rectangular shape;
an artificial light source configured to illuminate the
flexible sheet;
a plurality of elongated cylindrical lenses formed in a first
broad-area surface of the flexible sheet, wherein each of the
plurality of elongated cylindrical lenses longitudinally extends
parallel to an edge of the flexible sheet;
a plurality of discrete surface relief features formed in an
opposing second broad-area surface of the flexible sheet and
distributed over the second broad-area surface according to a
two-dimensional pattern;
a planar broad-area reflective surface located outside of
the flexible sheet and extending parallel to the flexible sheet;
wherein the discrete surface relief features are separated
from each other by optically smooth and planar portions of the
second broad-area surface such that a cumulative area of the
plurality of discrete surface relief features is substantially less
than the areas of each of the first and second broad-area surfaces.

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated Oct. 11, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 11, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated March 18, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed March 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-003438
Application 15/584,727

3
REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the rejection of claims
21–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ford et al., US 2011/0226332
A1, Sept. 22, 2011 (“Ford”) in view of Parkyn Jr. et al., US 5,404,869, Apr.
11, 1995 (“Parkyn”) and Tormen et al., US 2010/0186798 A1, July 29, 2010
(“Tormen”). Final Act. 6.

OPINION
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 identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 12–13.
Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal
stand or fall together with claim 1.
The Examiner rejects claim 21 as obvious over Ford in view of
Parkyn and Tormen. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Ford teaches, for
example, a light source, plurality of lenses, a surface with relief features, and
a planar broad-area reflective surface. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ford). The Examiner
Appeal 2019-003438
Application 15/584,727

4
finds that Ford suggests collection of light from artificial sources. Id. at 7.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Parkyn teaches a light collimator with
an optically transmissive sheet and finds that Parkyn teaches collection of
light from an artificial light source such arc lamp 764. Id. at 7–8 (citing
Parkyn). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
configure the light concentrator of Ford to collect light from an arc lamp as
exemplified by Parkyn so that the available light source could be converted
to energy. Id. at 8.
The Examiner finds that Ford illustrates only spherically-shaped
lenses. Id. at 8. The Examiner finds, however, that Parkyn considers
linear/cylindrical fluorescent tubes as a light source and states that such
tubes call for linearly-shaped refractive elements. Id. (citing Parkyn). The
Examiner also finds that Tormen teaches cylindrical lenses as a light
collector. Id. (citing Tormen). The Examiner determines that “[i]t would
have been obvious . . . that the spherically-shaped lenses 8 of Ford can
alternatively be shaped as cylindrical lenses in order to correspond to, and
collect light from, a cylindrical light source considered by the Ford–Parkyn
combination.” Id.
Appellant argues that none of the references teach cylindrical lenses
elongated and extending parallel to an edge of a flexible sheet. Appeal Br. 8;
Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner, however, determines that a person of skill in
the art would have combined the references’ teachings to reach such an
arrangement. Ans. 3–4. The preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s position. As the Examiner finds, Ford’s array of circular lenses
extends parallel to the edge of Ford’s flexible sheet. Id. 3; Ford Fig. 1. The
Examiner also finds that Parkyn illustrates that linear/cylindrical focusing
Appeal 2019-003438
Application 15/584,727

5
features/lenses must be parallel to each other for most efficient collection.
Ans. 4; Parkyn Fig. 9. A person of skill in the art making use of elongated /
cylindrical lenses, therefore, would also likewise know to extend such lenses
to the edge of the sheet to maximize light collection. Indeed, Tormen teaches
that “[i]n order to maximize the direct sunlight harvesting it is crucial that
the available surface on the transparent sheet 2 is covered entirely by the
micro-lenses 4, which are preferably spherical or cylindrical lenses.”
Tormen ¶ 37. A person of skill in the art would have recognized that,
geometrically, cylindrical lenses can only cover entirely a rectangular sheet
by placing them parallel an edge of the sheet.
Appellant also argues that none of the references teach a “planar
broad-area reflective surface located outside of a flexible sheet and
extending parallel to a flexible sheet.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner,
however, finds that Ford teaches such a surface. Final Act. 7 (citing Ford
Fig. 6, 11, ¶ 54); see also Ford ¶ 54 (referencing “mirror (reflective)
microstructure 140”). Appellant does not provide any explanation as to why
the Examiner’s finding is incorrect. Appellant’s argument, therefore, is
unpersuasive.
Appellant also argues that modification of Ford so that it collects
energy from Parkyn’s arc lamp would render Ford inoperable because
Ford’s intended purpose is concentrating and capturing solar energy. Appeal
Br. 9; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant’s argument reads Ford too narrowly. Ford
states that it can collect “[s]unlight (or possibly other incoming light).” Ford
¶ 29; see also Ans. 5. Ford also states that its facets can collect light “from a
light source (or multiple light sources).” Ford ¶ 41. Ford also indicates that
its facets can be “tailored specifically for the application.” Id. ¶ 38. Ford,
Appeal 2019-003438
Application 15/584,727

6
read as a whole, suggests that it may be used in conjunction with artificial
light sources.
Based on Ford Figure 5, Appellant also argues that Ford teaches away
from using non-directional light sources with Ford’s configuration. Appeal
Br. 10–11. Ford’s Figure 5 and related text (Ford ¶ 48), however, merely
illustrate that if incident light is tilted relative to the spherical lenses, the
light may miss the prism facets resulting in uncoupled light. Such a
misalignment may occur even in the case of sunlight. Ford ¶ 48. Ford’s
discussion of the misalignment problem does not disparage use of Ford’s
configuration with artificial lights or otherwise teach away from artificial
lighting. Rather, the solution to this particular problem is proper alignment
of lenses relative to the light by, for example, mounting the system on an
active alignment system or designing facets that are “more tolerant of
variations in the incidence angles of light.” Id. ¶¶ 49–50.
Appellant further argues that a person of skill in the art would not
have substituted Ford’s spherical lenses for the cylindrical lenses suggested
by Parkyn or Tormen. Appeal Br. 11–12. In particular, Appellant argues that
a cylindrical lens cannot efficiently focus all incident light on a small-sized
prism facet. Id. at 11. Appellant also argues that the Examiner lacks
evidence supporting such a substitution. Id. at 12. Appellant’s argument does
not persuade us of error. As explained above, Ford suggests that Ford’s
device may be used with artificial lighting. Also, Parkyn and Tormen
collectively suggest use of artificial lighting including a cylindrical arc light
in conjunction with tube shaped collection lenses. See, e.g., Ans. 8–9;
Parkyn Fig. 22, 5:55–56, 6:43–46; Tormen Fig. 1, ¶¶ 37, 40, 57, 60. Ford
further teaches that its prisms should be “tailored specifically for the
Appeal 2019-003438
Application 15/584,727

7
application.” Ford. ¶ 38; see also id. ¶ 32 (indicating that optical collection
efficient depends upon “the shapes and orientations of one or more particular
facet surfaces of the injection features”). A person of skill in the art,
therefore, would have understood that, to the extent substituting Ford’s
spherical lenses with cylindrical lenses could cause inefficiencies in focusing
light on Ford’s facets, Ford’s facets could be adjusted accordingly.
Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–40 103 Ford, Parkyn, Tormen 21–40
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