Ex Parte Bunea et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

12818959 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
10031.006410 8950
EXAMINER
TRINH, THANH TRUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/818,959 06/18/2010
74254 7590 03/29/2017
Okamoto & Benedicto LLP
P.O. Box 641330
San Jose, CA 95164-1330
Gabriela Bunea
03/29/2017 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 GABRIELA BUNEA and NICHOLAS BOITNOTT
Appeal 2016-000859
Application 12/818,9591
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFERY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a non-final rejection of
claims 1—3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is generally directed to a solar cell module
including interconnected solar cells, a transparent cover over the front sides
of the solar cells, a backsheet on the backside of the solar cells, and an
encapsulant protectively packaging the solar cells wherein the encapsulant
and the transparent cover forms a top protection package. Spec.2,11. 14—20.
1 The real party in interest is SunPower Corporation. (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-000859
Application 12/818,959
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the
Appeal Brief below:
1. A solar cell module comprising:
a plurality of interconnected solar cells, each of the solar
cells having a front side that faces the sun during normal
operation and a backside opposite the front side;
a transparent cover over the front sides of the solar cells;
a backsheet on the backsides of the solar cells; and
an encapsulant bonding the solar cells, the transparent
cover, and the backsheet to form a protective package, the
encapsulant having a UV (ultraviolet) transmission curve that
allows light having a wavelength of 350nm or shorter to pass
through, wherein the encapsulant has a volume specific
resistance of at least 5x1013 Qcm in the temperature range
-40°C to 90°C.
Appellants (see App. Br., generally) request review of the rejection of
claims 1—3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baldwin et al.
(US 2008/0236655 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2008) (“Baldwin”) in view of Haitko et
al. (US 2007/0228331 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007) (“Haitko”), as evidenced by
Momentive (“RTV655” or datasheet of RTV615, RTV655, RTV 656
silicone rubber compounds) (“Momentive”) from the Examiner’s Non-Final
Office Action.
OPINION2
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
2 Appellants present their substantive arguments addressing independent
claim 1. Appellants have not presented arguments specific to dependent
claims 2 and 3. We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal 2016-000859
Application 12/818,959
determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that the applied prior art would have rendered the
subject matter of claims 1—3 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of the above claims for the reasons set forth in the Non-
Final Action and the Answer. We add the following.
The Examiner found Baldwin discloses a solar cell module with a
silicone rubber encapsulant that differs from the claimed invention because
Baldwin does not specifically disclose a property of the encapsulant as
required by the claimed invention. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner found
Haitko describes silicone rubber encapsulant, specifically RTV 615, which
has a volume specific resistance of 1.8x1015 Qcm. Non-Final Act. 4; Haitko
Table 1. The Examiner further cited Momentive—the technical data sheet
for RTV615—as an evidentiary reference describing the properties of
RTV615. Non-Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner determined that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use RTV615 silicon as
an encapsulant for a solar cell module. Non-Final Act. 4—5.
Appellants argue the combination of Baldwin and Haitko does not
disclose that the GE RTV615 has a volume specific resistance of
1.8xl015 Qcm in the temperature range -40°C to 90°C.3 App. Br. 3.
Appellants argue Momentive does not disclose that the volume specific
resistance of 1.8xl015 Qcm is constant within the useful temperature range
of-60°C to 204°C. Id. In further support of this argument Appellants rely
on the declaration of Gabriela Bunea which further cites the Shin Etsu
3 Appellants have not argued that GE RTV615 described in Haitko is
different from the RTV615 described in Momentive.
3
Appeal 2016-000859
Application 12/818,959
silicone document. Id. at 4. Appellants also argue Baldwin Figure 7 fails to
describe an encapsulant bonding the solar cells, the transparent cover, and
the backsheet to form a protective package. Id. at 4—5.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. It is not disputed that Baldwin discloses the suitability
of using silicone rubber as transparent encapsulant for solar modules. See
Baldwin 128. Appellants have not disputed that silicon RTV615 would
have been suitable for solar modules as described by Baldwin.
Appellants’ argument and declaration evidence are insufficient to
establish that RTV615 does not have a volume specific resistance of
1.8xl015 Qcm in the temperature range -40°C to 90°C. The statement that
RTV615 Momentive does not disclose that the volume specific resistance of
1.8xl015 Qcm is constant within the useful temperature range of-60°C to
204°C does not address the issue as to whether RTV615 has a volume
specific resistance of 1.8xl015 Qcm in the temperature range -40°C to 90°C
as required by the claimed invention. App. Br. 3, Declaration p. 2. The Shin
Etsu silicone document is insufficient to support Declarant’s statements
because the document is directed to the properties of silicone rubber and are
not specific to RTV615. The Declarant also has not adequately explained
that the properties exhibited in the Shin Etsu document, which describes
silicone rubber generally, would also represent the specific properties of
RTV615.
Appellants’ argument that Baldwin fails to describe an encapsulant
bonding the solar cells, the transparent cover, and the backsheet to form a
protective package is not persuasive. Contrary to Appellants’ argument,
4
Appeal 2016-000859
Application 12/818,959
Baldwin discloses an additional layer of encapsulant (52) can be utilized on
the backside of the solar cells. Baldwin | 64.
Appellants argument that Momentive does not quality as prior art is
also not persuasive. App. Br. 6. Extrinsic evidence can be utilized to
explain the properties of the component. Indeed, it is well settled that
admissions or other evidence including non-prior art documents may be used
during examination to show a state of fact. “[EJxtrinsic evidence [in the
form of depositions, declarations, and admissions] may be considered when
it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” Cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In the present
case, Momentive was cited to describe properties of RTV615.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1—3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCEUSION
The obviousness rejection 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
5