Ex Parte Koran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2015

12209780 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANCOIS ANDRE KORAN, STEPHEN JOSEPH NORTON,
and KHANH DUC TRAN
____________

Appeal 2013-001184
Application 12/209,780
1

Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–9 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over at least the combined prior art of Bianchi (US
2005/0211291 A1, pub. Sep. 29, 2005) and Morooka (WO 2005/112184 A1,
pub. Nov. 24, 2005, as translated in US 2008/0083452 A1, pub. Apr. 10,
2008), as evidenced by Varghese (US 2009/0078308 A1, pub. Mar. 26,

1
The Real Party in Interest is Solutia Inc. (Br. 1).
Appeal 2013-001184
Application 12/209,780

2
2009) and Saito (JP 2003/264308 A, pub. Sep. 19, 2003).
2
We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added):
1. A thin film photovoltaic module, comprising:
a base substrate;
a thin film photovoltaic device disposed in contact with said base
substrate, wherein said photovoltaic device comprises a bus bar, wherein
said bus bar protrudes from the surface of said device;
a polymer layer disposed in contact with said photovoltaic device;
and,
a protective substrate disposed in contact with said polymer layer;
wherein said protective substrate is contoured so as to provide a
depression located opposite said bus bar; and
wherein said polymer layer is between said photovoltaic device and
said protective substrate.

Independent claim 22 is directed to a thin film photovoltaic module
similar to claim 1, expressed in product by process language.
Appellants’ arguments mainly focus on limitations common to
independent claims 1 and 22 (Br. 9–12). Appellants also provide arguments
directed to dependent claims 4 and 6 (Br. 13–15).

2
Anderson (US 2008/0017241 A1, pub. Jan. 24, 2008) is also applied to
dependent claims 3 and 7–9 (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2013-001184
Application 12/209,780

3
ANALYSIS
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter is unpatentable under § 103 in view of the applied
prior art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejections for the
reasons explained in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements
would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the
improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
Appellants argue that Bianchi lacks the structure recited in claims 1
and 22, because
a) its GaInN layers are not in contact with the base substrate because
its TCC (transparent conductive coating) layers “are in the way” (Br. 10);
b) it does not comprise a bus bar that “protrudes from the surface” as
recited in claim 1 (id.); and
c) it fails to teach a polymer layer (Br. 11).
These arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants’ Specification
describes that its photovoltaic device is inclusive of a transparent conductive
Appeal 2013-001184
Application 12/209,780

4
oxide layer, thus it is reasonable to include the TCC layers of Bianchi as part
of its photovoltaic device (Ans. 4; Spec. 8:1-9).
Bianchi teaches explicitly that its bus (bar) may be arranged on the
front side, and Varghese exemplifies that a bus bar element will protrude
therefrom (e.g., Non-Final Action 4, 5 (mailed Oct. 19, 2011); Varghese
Figs. 12, 14B conductive grid lines 501 with adhesive (polymer) layer
between photovoltaic cell and protective glass substrate). Furthermore,
Morooka also exemplifies that its conductive interconnection layer (bus) 3
protrudes into trenches in the transparent base 2 (e.g., Fig. 2; see also, Non-
Final Action 5).
A preponderance of the evidence also supports the Examiner’s
position that an adhesive as taught by Bianchi encompasses and renders
obvious the claimed polymer layer (Ans. 5, 6). See also, e.g., In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (it is well established that in evaluating
references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of
the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom). While Appellants assert that an
adhesive (polymer) does not correspond to the claimed polymer layer, they
do not sufficiently identify any specific distinctions (Br. 11).
In summary, Appellants have not provided persuasive reasoning or
credible evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have, using
no more than ordinary creativity, predictably modified and used a known
bus bar/grid protrusions location in Bianchi and provide complementary
depressions/trenches as exemplified in Morooka in the protective cover with
an adhesive polymer layer therebetween (Non-Final Action, Ans. generally).
Appeal 2013-001184
Application 12/209,780

5
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
To the extent claims 4 and 6 are argued separately, a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s position (Ans. 6, 7; no responsive brief
has been filed).
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of all the claims
on appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

DECISION
AFFIRMED

tc