Ex Parte Kalman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13186863 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
13/186,863 07/20/2011 Andrew E. Kalman P4303 5140
24739 7590 08/01/2017
CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC
3 HANGAR WAY SUITE D
WATSONVTT.T.E, CA 95076
EXAMINER
SCHMIEDEL, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1757
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
officeactions@CENTRALCOASTPATENT.COM
plambuth@centralcoastpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW E. KALMAN
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,86s1
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1—5 and 9 in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Andrew E. Kalman is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2,
Aug. 10, 2015.
2 Final Office Action, Mar. 13, 2015 (hereinafter Final Action); Examiner’s
Answer, Feb. 1, 2016 (hereinafter Answer).
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to an “apparatus for electrically
interconnecting solar cells and panels deployed in a solar panel array.”
Spec. 1:14—15. Appellant describes the invention as follows:
In summary, for the first time, a system of interconnecting
individual solar panels without utilizing wires external from the
individual panels is provided. One or more structural spring
loaded hinges are affixed to edges of interconnecting solar panels
wherein the actual electrical connection between the panels is
supported with hinge bodies and wherein the multi-coil spring
not only provides hinge function and structure, but also the elec­
trical connection between the panels.
Appeal Br. 3^4 (emphasis omitted).
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative:
1. A solar panel assembly comprising:
a first and a second elongate printed circuit board, each
elongate printed circuit board supporting a plurality of
individual solar cells mounted thereon and electrically
connected in series by conductive traces to form a first and
second solar panel; and
a hinge assembly comprising a first and a second non-
conductive hinge body joined by a hinge pin providing an axis
of rotation between the hinge bodies, and a single, electrically-
conductive coil spring having a wound length around the hinge
axis, a first tang extending from one end in a direction at a right
angle to the hinge axis, and a second tang extending from an
opposite end extending at a right angle from the hinge axis and
opposite in direction to the direction of the first tang;
wherein the first non-conductive hinge body is mounted
over a first conductive pad located along a first edge of the first
solar panel, the first conductive pad connected to conductive
traces of the first solar panel, the second non-conductive hinge
body is mounted over a second conductive pad located along a
second edge of the second solar panel, the second conductive
pad connected to conductive traces of the second solar panel,
2
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
the first and second edges adjacent, the hinge pin is joined
pivotally to the first and the second non-conductive hinge
bodies with the axis of rotation in the direction of the first and
second edges, spacing the first and second non-conductive
hinge bodies apart by a distance equal to or greater than the
wound length of the electrically-conductive coil spring, and the
electrically-conductive coil spring surrounds the hinge pin with
the first tang captured between the first non-conductive hinge
body and the first conductive pad, and the second tang captured
between the second conductive pad and the second non-
conductive hinge body, electrically connecting the conductive
traces of the first and the second solar panels.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis of key limitations added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1—4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Marello3 in view of Corio,4 Zaderej,5 and Scholz.6
See Final Action 3—11.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marello in view of Corio, Zaderej, Scholz, and Boyle.7
See id. at 11—12.
3 Marello, US 4,155,524 (issued May 22, 1979).
4 Corio, US 2008/0185034 A1 (published Aug. 7, 2008).
5 Zaderej, US 2006/0048340 A1 (published Mar. 9, 2006).
6 Scholz et al., US 2008/0156365 A1 (published July 3, 2008).
7 Boyle, US 6,159,056 (issued Dec. 12, 2000).
3
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
DISCUSSION
Figure 1 of Marello is reproduced below:
Marello’s Figure 1 depicts “a series of flat carrier elements carrying solar
cells la.” Marello 3:18—19. The panels are connected, in part, by a driving
device 8 consists of a spring and a pivot pin, as well as hinges against which
the ends of the spring are applied. See id. at 4:20-21, 40-41, 45—50.
The Examiner finds that Marello teaches a hinged solar panel
assembly according to claim 1. See Final Action 4. The Examiner finds that
Marello does not teach that the individual solar cells are connected in series,
but finds that Corio teaches that cells may suitably connected in series. See
id. at 4—5 (citing Corio 134). Although Marello does not teach the use of
printed circuit boards (PCBs), the Examiner finds that Corio teaches that
PCBs serve a dual function of providing electrical circuits and dissipating
4
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
heat, and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
use them to modify Marello. See id. (citing Corio 40, 42).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Marello and Corio would
necessarily result in the first and second hinge bodies mounted over
conductive cell solder pads at the edges of the solar panels. See id. at 5. The
Examiner acknowledges that
modified Marello et al. are silent to the first and second hinge
bodies being non-conductive, the coil spring being an electrically
conductive coil spring, the specific configuration of the first and
second hinge bodies mounted over first and second conductive
pads, respectively, at first and second edges of the panels. Modi­
fied Marello et al. are silent to the first tang captured between the
first non-conductive hinge body and the first conductive pad, and
the second tang captured between the second conductive pad and
the second non-conductive hinge body.
Id. at 6. However, the Examiner finds that Zaderej teaches a hinge
connector capable of electrically connecting two panels in the manner of
claim 1. See id. at 6—7. Figure 5 of Zaderej is reproduced below:
FIG. 5
5
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
Zaderej’s Figure 5 depicts one bobbin portion of a hinge connector. Zaderej
115. According to the Examiner, a hinge formed by these portions is used
to connect two panels for electronic devices, such that
the hinge connector includes a conductive contact, the conduc­
tive contact is a coil spring (element 74 in Figs. 5—6, paragraph
0042), and the coil spring is arranged such that the ends of the
spring (elements 92 and 94) are electrically connected to the elec­
trical components of the first and second panels (halves; para­
graph 0045-0046 and 0049 describe electrical connection of the
ends 92/94 of the springs to electrical components in the halves
24/26). Zad[e]rej teaches the hinge connector allows for contin­
uous electrical continuity between the two panels (halves), and
for rotation relative to each other (paragraph 0046), and no rub­
bing or wear occurs between the elements resulting in no issues
in contact wear (paragraph 0049). Zad[e]rej further teaches ends
of the coil spring are connected with traces of a printed wiring
board (PWB; paragraphs 0030 and 0045).
Final Action 6—7.
The Examiner also finds that Scholz teaches an edge mountable
electrical connection assembly for a photovoltaic module. See Final Action
7 (citing Abstract, Figs. 12, 13). Figure 12 of Scholz is reproduced as
follows:
6
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
Scholz’s Figure 12 depicts “an edge housing 400 that enables the electrical
connection of one electrical conductor to another at the edge of a multilayer
flat panel or module while providing electrical, environmental, and
mechanical protection to both cables.” Scholz | 69. According to the
Examiner, the hinge body is non-conductive, and “is used to provide
mechanical pressure between two electrical contacts [to] ensure an electrical
connection.” Id. at 7 (citing Scholz || 15, 71). Thus, the Examiner finds
that Scholz teaches “using a non-conductive body element to ensure proper
pressure between a conductive pad and a conductive element, e.g. a wire
(Figs. 12 and 13 and paragraph 0071), and teach[es that] the body elements
7
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
are formed at an edge of the solar panel and mounted over the conductive
pads of the panels (Fig. 12).” Id.
The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to modify the device of modified Marello
et al. and include the electrically conductive coil spring hinge as­
sembly of Zad[e]rej for connecting adjacent panel structures, in
order to reduce contact wear and provide continuous electrical
continuity between the panels of the electrical device, as taught
by Zad[e]rej. Furthermore, Scholz et al. teach that a non-con-
ductive body element is used to maintain the proper pressure and
ensure electrical connection between a conductive pad and con­
ductive element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate
the electrically conductive coil spring ends between a non-con-
ductive hinge body and a conductive pad of modified Marello et
al., in order to ensure proper pressure for electrical connection,
as taught by Scholz et al.
Id. at 7—8. Further, the Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the first and second tangs
of the electrically conductive coil spring in the same manner; mere
duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced.” Id. at 8 (citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669,
671 (CCPA I960)). The Examiner determines that
[t]he combination would necessarily result in first and second
non-conductive hinge bodies mounted over conductive pads of
the first and second solar panels at their edges, wherein an elec­
trically conductive coil spring with extended tangs has an ex­
tended tang coupled between each of the conductive pads and the
hinge bodies of the first and second solar panels.
Id.
Appellant argues that “there are no traces near the edge of Corio’s
assembly that would necessarily be available for connection to hinge
8
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
assemblies connecting panels, as shown in Marello.” Appeal Br. 6. We find
this argument persuasive. A limitation is inherent in the prior art only when
it is (a) necessarily present, or (b) the natural result of the combination of
elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art. See Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI
Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195—96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, the
Examiner has not pointed to any persuasive evidence in this record that a
hinge body as disclosed by Marello would necessarily be mounted over a
conductive pad as described by Corio, or that such an arrangement would be
the natural result of combining Marello with Corio.
The Examiner’s reliance on Zaderej and Scholz to teach the connected
hinge mechanism also fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner’s stated reason for combining Scholz with modified Marello
is “to incorporate the electrically conductive coil spring ends between a non-
conductive hinge body and a conductive pad of modified Marello et al., in
order to ensure proper pressure for electrical connection, as taught by Scholz
et al.” Id. at 8. However, the structural mechanism of the hinge in Scholz
does not include a spring with tangs such as in Marello or Zaderej, and the
lead 410, which the Examiner identifies as the first or second “conductive
pad” is not functionally or structurally similar to the conductive solder pads
24/28 disclosed in Corio. Thus, the Examiner has not adequately explained
how or why a skilled artisan would have adapted the teachings of Scholz to
be compatible with the structure of Marello as modified by the teachings of
Corio and Zaderej.
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 2—5 and 9, which
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
9
Appeal 2016-004750
Application 13/186,863
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
10