Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

13660292 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
13/660,292 10/25/2012 Sung Dug KIM 10031.010000 5938
74254 7590 02/15/2017
Okamoto & Benedicto LLP
P.O. Box 641330
San Jose, CA 95164-1330
EXAMINER
MEKHLIN, ELI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1758
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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 SUNPOWER CORPORATION
Appellant1
——————
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
Technology Center 1700
——————
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, 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 1–11, 14, 16, and 17 in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 SunPower Corporation is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 (2012) and
the Appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Application Data Sheet 4, Oct.
25, 2012. The named inventors are Sung Dug KIM and Gabriela BUNEA.
Id. at 1. Appellant identifies SunPower Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1, May 21, 2015.
2 Office Action, Jan. 9, 2015 [hereinafter Action]; Examiner’s Answer, Aug.
12, 2015 [hereinafter Answer].
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to solar cell modules. Spec. ¶ 1. An
embodiment is depicted in Figure 6, reproduced below:

Figure 6 is a schematic cross section of a bifacial solar cell module 100,
along a row of solar cells 101 represented as rectangles in the figure. See id.
¶ 31. The solar cell layer 101 is surrounded by an encapsulant 252. See id.
¶ 32. Above the encapsulant is a transparent top cover 251, and below the
encapsulant is a backsheet 253 with transparent portions 253-2 and reflective
portions 253-1. See id. Light rays 301 arrive from the front side 103 of the
device and onto the front of the solar cells, while light rays 302, also from
the front side, bounce off the reflective portions 253-1, and are reflected
again off the top cover 251 onto the front side of the solar cells 101. See id.
Other light rays 303 arrive from the back side 104 of the module and “may
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
3
eventually enter the backsides or front sides of the solar cells 101.” Id.
(emphasis added).
Independent claims 1 and 10 are representative:
1. A bifacial solar cell module comprising:
a plurality of solar cells;
an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar
cells;
a transparent top cover on a front portion of the bifacial
solar cell module; and
a backsheet on a back portion of the bifacial solar cell
module, the backsheet having transparent portions that expose
backsides of the plurality of solar cells as viewed from the back
portion and that allow light coming from the back portion of the
bifacial solar cell module to enter through the transparent
portions, the backsheet having an integrated reflective portion
that reflects light coming from the front portion of the solar cell
module, the backsheet being an outermost packaging
component on the back portion of the solar cell module.
. . . .
10. A bifacial solar cell module comprising:
a plurality of solar cells in an encapsulation comprising a
front encapsulant and a back encapsulant;
a plurality of front side packaging components on a front
portion of the bifacial solar cell module, the plurality of front
side packaging components comprising the front encapsulant;
a plurality of backside packaging components on a
backside portion of the bifacial solar cell module, the plurality
of backside packaging components comprising a clear
backsheet that allows light coming from the backside portion of
the bifacial solar cell module to pass through and reach the
plurality of solar cells and the back encapsulant, the backsheet
being outermost packaging component on the backside portion
of the bifacial solar cell module; and
a reflective component that reflects light coming from the
front portion of the bifacial solar cell module, the reflective
component being on the backsheet.
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
4
Appeal Br. 10–11 (emphasis added). Claim 16 is also independent, and is
directed to a method of making a bifacial solar cell module similar to that
defined by claim 1. See id. at 12.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kardauskas.3 See Action 4–5.
II. Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Durvasula4 in view of Minelli.5 See Action 6–9.
III. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Durvasula in view of Von Moltke.6 See Action 9.
IV. Claims 4–6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Durvasula in view of Minelli, and further in view of
Kardauskas. See Action 9–13.
V. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Durvasula in view of Minelli, and further in view of
Majumdar.7 See Action 13–14.
VI. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Durvasula in view of Minelli, and further in view of
Amick.8 See Action 14–16.

3 Kardauskas, U.S. Patent No. 5,994,641 (issued Nov. 30, 1999).
4 Durvasula, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0272698 A1
(published Dec. 7, 2006).
5 Minelli, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2009/0301544 A1 (published
Dec. 10, 2009).
6 Von Moltke et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2011/0192826 A1
(published Aug. 11, 2011).
7 Majumdar et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2011/0143060 A1
(published June 16, 2011).
8 Amick, U.S. Patent No. 4,235,643 (issued Nov. 25, 1980).
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
5
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues claims 10, 11, and 14 as a first
group, and claims 1–7, 9, 16, and 17 as a second group, relying on the
arguments presented with respect to claim 1 for claims 2–7, 9, 16, and 17.
See Appeal Br. 3–8. Appellant also presents separate arguments regarding
claim 8. See id. at 8. Therefore, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2016), we limit our discussion to claims 10, 1, and 8. Claims 11 and 14
stand or fall with claim 10, and claims 2–7, 9, 16, and 17 stand or fall with
claim 1.
DISCUSSION
Claims 10, 11, and 14
The Examiner finds that Kardauskas discloses all the elements of
claim 10. See Action 4–5. Figure 6 of Kardauskas is reproduced below:

Figure 6 depicts a solar cell module comprising a row of cells 4 in an
encapsulant 14, between a cover member 10 and a back protector sheet 6.
See Kardauskas 8:45–59; see also id. at 6:7–11. Directly between each of
the cells 4, also within the encapsulant 14, are reflective strips 20B. See id.
at 8:49–50. In an alternative embodiment, not shown in Figure 6, an
additional layer of encapsulant is placed between the solar cells 4 and the
reflective layer 20B. See id. at 9:36-48. The Examiner finds that in
Kardauskas, the “reflective component” of claim 10 “is positioned between
the back encapsulation layer of the solar cells and the backsheet and is
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
6
positioned on the backsheet due to the presence of the third encapsulation
layer” (between the reflective component 20B and the backsheet 6). Action
5 (citing Kardauskas 9:36–48).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the reflective
strips 20B of Kardauskas as being “on the backsheet” is “inconsistent with
the Specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, and
effectively removes the ‘reflective component being on the backsheet’
limitation from claim 10.” Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant. In light of the plain meaning of the claims
and the Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
reasonably interpret the word on to allow any significant space between the
backsheet and the reflective component. The word on connotes either
contact or close proximity. See, e.g., On, Prep., OED ONLINE (Dec. 2016),
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/131297?rskey=wlXXzR&result=5 (“I. Of
position. Of local position outside of, but in contact with or close to, a
surface.”). This is consistent with the Specification, which describes
embodiments in which the reflective component is printed directly on the
backsheet, see Spec. ¶ 34, is a tape that is attached on the backsheet, see
Spec. ¶ 40, or is a layer that is placed between the backsheet and the
encapsulant, see Spec. ¶ 41. See also Figs. 6, 8, 9, 12, 13. Therefore, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “on the backsheet” requires
contact with, or close proximity to, the backsheet.
In light of this interpretation, the Examiner erred in finding that
Kardauskas discloses a reflective component 20B that is “on” the backsheet
6. Because this error is material to the Examiner’s finding that Kardauskas
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
7
anticipates claims 10, 11, and 14, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 10, 11, and 14.
Claims 1–7, 9, 16, and 17
Figure 4 of Durvasula is reproduced below:

Figure 4 depicts a concentrating photovoltaic system in which a photovoltaic
cell 15 sits within an encapsulant 31 between a front cover 12 and back
cover 16. See Durvasula ¶ 28. The back cover 16 has a flat front surface 21
and a v-shaped, patterened back surface 23, on which is formed a reflective
layer 27. See id. Durvasula teaches that a polyvinyl fluoride support plate
33 “may be provided to support the back cover 16.” Id. In operation, light
rays from the front of the device are reflected from the reflective layer 27
onto either the front or back surface of the photovoltaic cell. See id. ¶ 29.
The Examiner finds that layers 16, 27, and 33 comprise the backsheet
of claim 1, see Action 6, and notes that the Specification states that the
backsheet may comprise multiple layers, see Answer 18 (citing Spec. ¶ 22).
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
8
The Examiner also finds that the reflective layer 27 is an integrated portion
of the multilayer backsheet. See Answer 18. In addition, the Examiner finds
that Durvasula teaches all the other limitations of claim 1, except that it does
not indicate whether or not the polyvinyl fluoride support plate 33 is
transparent. See Action 6–7. However, the Examiner finds that Minelli
teaches a comparable support polyvinyl support plate that is transparent, and
concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to use the material of Minelli in the Durvasula device. See id. at 7.
Appellant argues that the term backsheet “is a term of art used to
describe the outermost rear sealing component of a solar cell module.”
Appeal Br. 5. Thus, Appellant identifies support plate 33 as the sole
backsheet in Durvasula, see id. at 6; Reply Br. 4, and argues that Durvasula
does not teach an “integrated reflective portion,” see Appeal Br. at 6.
Appellant further argues that if the term backsheet is construed to include
multiple layers, this construction “essentially ignores the limitation that the
backsheet has an integrated reflective portion.” Id. Appellant argues that “a
backsheet can be multilayer, but not every multilayer component is a
backsheet,” and that the Examiner’s identification of layers 16, 27, and 33 as
the backsheet is arbitrary. Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error.
Durvasula refers to layer 16 as a “back cover,” See Durvasula ¶ 28, and in
other embodiments, back cover 16 is a flat cover plate at the back of the
device that corresponds in function and placement with backsheets 253 and
371 in Appellant’s drawings. Compare id. Figs. 1, 5, 10, with Spec. Figs. 2–
4, 7, 12, 13. Durvasula teaches that if back cover 16 is embodied as a flat
sheet as depicted in Figure 1, it “may be used as an optical cover or as a
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
9
support plate.” Id. at ¶ 24. In the embodiment of Figure 4, however, the
back cover’s support plate functionality is carried out by a separate support
plate layer 33, which is also the outermost packaging component of the
module as depicted in Figure 4. Like the multiple-layer backsheet
embodiment described in the Specification, Durvasula’s layers 16 and 33
function together to “provide environmental protection to other components
of the solar cell module.” Spec. ¶ 22. Therefore, the preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that both back cover 16 and
support plate 33 are part of the backsheet as that term is used in Appellants’
Specification.
The Specification distinguishes a reflective portion that is “integrated
with a backsheet, e.g., by printing colored pigments on the backsheet,” from
a reflective portion “that is separate from the backsheet.” Spec. 4; see also
Spec. ¶¶ 16–17, Figs. 12–13 (depicting an embodiment of a reflective
portion that is separate from the backsheet). In Figure 4, Durvasula states
that “reflective layer 27 is formed on the patterned surface 23 of the back
cover 16.” Durvasula ¶ 28. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that layer 27 is an “integrated reflective
portion” of back cover 16, and thus an integrated portion of the backsheet as
a whole.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1, and likewise, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the rejections of claims 2–7, 9, 16, and 17.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and further requires that “the
integrated reflective portion comprises a reflective material that is textured
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
10
for light scattering.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner finds that the reflective
layer 27 of Durvasula “has an uneven surface and reflects incident light,
meaning the integrated reflective portion comprises a reflective material that
is textured for light scattering.” Answer 20 (citing Durvasula Fig. 4).
While Durvasula describes a patterned, reflective surface, the
Examiner has not shown that Durvasula teaches that the reflective material is
“textured for light scattering” as required by claim 8. The Specification
distinguishes scattering from straight reflection. See Spec. ¶ 33 (“[E]ven
though silver may be an excellent reflector, a reflective portion 253-1 made
of silver may not scatter enough light to be efficient because most of the
reflected light may simply reflect straight out of the solar cell module.”).
Therefore, consistent with the Specification, we interpret the term “textured
for light scattering” to mean that the surface throws back light diffusely or
randomly in all directions. See, e.g., Scatter, v., OED ONLINE (Dec. 2016),
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/172150?rskey=3ZpaGy&result=2
&isAdvanced=false (“[5]e. Physics. Of a surface, semi-opaque substance:
To throw back (light) brokenly in all directions. More widely, to deflect,
diffuse, or reflect (radiation, particles, or the like) in a more or less random
fashion.”).
In light of this interpretation, the Examiner reversibly erred in
rejecting claim 8.
Appeal 2016-000364
Application 13/660,292
11
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 16, and 17 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 10, 11, and 14 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART