Ex Parte Childs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2019

13180812 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/180,812 07/12/2011
35089 7590
FOGLER RUBINOFF LLP
116 Albert Street, Suite 701
OTTA WA, ON KIP 5G3
CANADA
02/15/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Montgomery W. Childs
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
132091 3150
EXAMINER
AYAD,TAMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2019 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):
ederenyi@foglers.com
mgrant@foglers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MONTGOMERY W. CHILDS
and WILLIAM DEBURGER
Appeal2017-004810
Application 13/180,812
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants (Montgomery W. Childs and William DeBurger)
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
4--8, and 12-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claims are to a photovoltaic solar panel. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A photovoltaic solar panel capable of clearing snow and
ice accumulated on a surface thereof, the photovoltaic solar
panel comprising:
a. a plurality of photovoltaic cells arranged adjacent one
another in a plane;
b. a first transparent glass sheet comprising low Fe glass
overlaying the photovoltaic cells, the glass sheet having a first
Appeal2017-004810
Application 13/180,812
side positioned towards the photovoltaic cells and an opposite
second side having a flat surface extending along the entirety of
the second side;
c. a transparent layer, having a thermal conductivity,
separating the glass sheet and the photovoltaic cells, wherein
the transparent layer is a layer of transparent polymer, and
d. an array of electrical heating microfilaments
comprising silver positioned within the transparent layer and
not directly on the photovoltaic cells or the glass sheet such
that uniform thermal heat distribution is promoted across the
glass sheet, wherein the photovoltaic cells, the glass sheet, the
transparent layer and the electrical heating web[ 1J are assembled
without a frame, and the electrical heating microfilaments in the
array being arranged in, each of the electrical heating
micro filaments in the array having a diameter of between 10 to
50 microns,
wherein the glass sheet and the photovoltaic cells directly
contact the polymer layer; and
wherein the transparent layer is sufficiently thick to
decrease the amount of heat transferred from the
microfilaments, when in use, to the photovoltaic cells,
without compromising the transparency of the transparent layer.
Stephens
Poss
Weiss
Ward
The References
us 4,313,023
US 2005/0005785 Al
US 7,129,444 B2
US 2012/0180844 Al
The Rejection
Jan.26, 1982
Jan. 13,2005
Oct. 31, 2006
July 19, 2012
Claims 1, 4--8, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Stephens in view of Weiss, Poss, and Ward.
1 The term "the electrical heating web" lacks antecedent basis and apparently
should be "the array of electrical heating micro filaments".
2
Appeal2017-004810
Application 13/180,812
OPINION
We reverse the rejection.
Stephens discloses a solar cell array comprising an
optically-transparent optical medium (silicone encapsulant 54) between solar
cells ( 40) and a light-transparent primary optical medium (glass 11) ( col. 4,
11. 43-63; col. 6, 11. 28-32; Fig. 3).
Weiss discloses "a heater grid design for plastic panels or windows
capable of defrosting greater than or equal to 75% of the viewing area in a
manner that emulates the performance of a conventional heater grid on a
glass panel" ( col. 2, 11. 31-35). The heater grid (15) has a first group of grid
lines (20) having width W1 and a second group of grid lines (35) having
width W2, where W2/W1 is less than or equal to about 0.5 (col. 8, 11. 55-57;
col. 9, 11. 15-18; Fig. 3). "A W2/W1 ratio outside this region may result in a
heater grid design that is either aesthetically unpleasant or does not meet
industry standard requirements for unobstructed vision" (col. 9, 11. 18-21).
The grid lines (20, 3 5) may be conductive wires or filaments (col.I 1, 11. 4--
8). The heater grid (15) may be placed between silicone protective coatings
when facing either the interior or exterior of a vehicle ( col. 12, 11. 59---63;
col. 13, 11. 18-25). "A heater grid [15] integrally formed between layers of
protective coatings is a preferred method due to its ability to evenly
distribute heat across the surface of the window" (col. 13, 11. 16-18). An
exemplified layered window structure comprises two transparent glass
panels, a plastic film on the interior surface of each transparent glass panel,
and a heater grid between the plastic films (Table 2f).
Poss discloses a trash compactor powered by a photovoltaic (PV) cell
array (Abstract). "[H]eating elements may be placed above, beneath or
3
Appeal2017-004810
Application 13/180,812
within the PV array, in order to melt snow or ice that is covering the PV
array" (if 50).
The Examiner concludes (Ans. 21 ):
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to integrally form electrical heating
microfilaments in the silicone layer of Stephens, as taught by
Weiss, because the electrical heating microfilaments promote
uniform thermal heat distribution across the glass sheet
(Weiss - C13/Ll 7-25). One of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have been motivated to make such
a modification because Poss discloses heating elements may be
placed above, beneath or within a PV array in order to melt
snow or ice that is covering the PV array (Poss - [0050]
Ll 1-13).
Weiss's silicone layers between which a heater grid can be positioned
are protective coatings for the heater grid ( col. 13, 11. 18-25), whereas
Stephens's silicone optical medium (54) within which, according to the
Examiner's rationale, heating microfilaments are to be placed (Ans. 4), is an
encapsulant that "bonds the facets [(in linear land area 18)] and cells [40] to
the support 11 as well as assures that there is no air space between the
cells [ 40] and the primary optical medium 11 or the facets and the primary
optical medium 11" (col. 4, 11. 59---63). The Examiner does not establish that
Weiss's disclosure that a heater grid between silicone protective coatings on
a window's interior or exterior surface evenly distributes heat across the
window's surface would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with
an apparent reason to place a heater grid within Stephens' s optical
medium silicone encapsulant that functions to bond facets and solar cells to
a glass top support structure (primary optical medium 11) and to assure that
there is no air space between the solar cells or facets and the top glass
4
Appeal2017-004810
Application 13/180,812
support structure, rather than placing it between silicone protective coatings
on the interior or exterior surface of the glass top support structure. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art
as proposed by the Examiner). Nor does the Examiner establish that Poss's
disclosure that heating elements can be placed above, beneath or within a PV
array would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to place Weiss's heater
grid within Stephens' s optical medium silicone encapsulant.
Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner's rejection is based upon
impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellants' disclosure. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on section
103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted
without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art.").
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4--8, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Stephens in view of Weiss, Poss, and Ward is reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5