Ex Parte LindermanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201712822893 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/822,893 06/24/2010 Ryan Linderman 500623US 6709 145212 7590 09/28/2017 Ohl on /S»i 1 nnnwer EXAMINER 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1757 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2017 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): patentdocket @ oblon. com oblonpat @ oblon. com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYAN LINDERMAN Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,8931 Technology Center 1700 Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—19, 28—32, and 34—37 in the above-identified application.3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SunPower Corporation. See Appeal Br. 3, June 8, 2015. 2 Appeal Br.; Reply Br., Jan. 18, 2016. 3 Final Office Action, Nov. 6, 2014 [hereinafter Final Action]; Examiner’s Answer, Nov. 16,2015 [hereinafter Answer], Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention relates to optimizing airflow through optoelectronic systems. See Spec.4| 1. Figure llAofthe application illustrates an embodiment, which is reproduced below as annotated by Appellant: Appeal Br. 8. Figure 11A depicts an apparatus with curved optical concentrator optical elements 1104,1106, and 1114, photovoltaic receivers 1102,1108, and 1109, and airflow accelerators 1105, and 1113. See Spec. 197. The figure indicates various airflow pathways with dashed arrows. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An apparatus to increase a speed of an airflow through a heat exchanger, comprising: a support frame; a first curved optical element supported by the support frame, the first curved optical element having a front reflective side, a back side, a top edge, and a bottom edge; 4 Specification, June 24, 2010 [hereinafter Spec.]. 2 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 a second curved optical element having a top edge and a bottom edge, wherein the top edge of the first curved optical element is spaced apart from the top edge of the second curved optical element, and wherein the bottom edge of the first curved optical element is spaced apart from the bottom edge of the second curved optical element, wherein the first and second curved optical elements are exposed to the atmosphere and natural wind currents', an optoelectronic device mechanically coupled to the second curved optical element, the optoelectronic device comprising a heat exchanger and a solar receiver, the solar receiver having a first side configured to receive solar energy and a second opposite side connected to the heat exchanger, the heat exchanger including an air flow passage configured to allow a flow of air to pass through the heat exchanger on the second side of the solar receiver and in at least upward and downward directions, the optoelectronic device mounted relative to the first curved optical element such that light reflected off of the front reflective side is directed to the first side of the solar receiver; and an airflow accelerator supported by the support frame and mechanically coupled to the optoelectronic device, wherein the airflow accelerator comprises a first surface configured to guide the airflow towards the heat exchanger, the airflow accelerator configured to guide at least a portion of the airflow through a space between the second curved optical element and the optoelectronic device. Appeal Br. 28 (emphasis of key limitations added). Claim 11 is also independent, and includes limitations similar to those highlighted in claim 1 above. See id. at 29—30. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See Final Action 7-8. 3 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 2. Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—19, 28—32, and 34—37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Home.5 See id. at 8—28. 3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-15, 17, 18, 28—32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wares.6 See id. at 29-43. 4. Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—19, 28—32, and 34—37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Home in view of Pauli.7 See id. at 44-46. 5. Claims 5, 8, 16, 19, and 35—37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wares. See id. at 46-48. DISCUSSION Rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 1 Claim 31 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the first curved optical element and the second curved optical element are not disposed inside a closed housing.” Appeal Br. 31. The Examiner finds that “[t]he specification does not provide support for the absence of a closed housing and neither recites that a housing is present or is not present.” See Final Action 7—8. While noting that the Specification refers to the atmosphere and natural wind currents, the Examiner finds that such exposure “does not overlap completely in scope with the limitation that the curved optical elements are not disposed in a closed housing, as the elements could 5 Home et al., US 2008/0251113 A1 (published Oct. 16, 2008). 6 Wares et al., US 2011/0120524 Al (published May 26, 2011). 7 Pauli, US 2005/0081909 Al (published Apr. 21, 2005). 4 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 be exposed to the natural wind currents and the atmosphere in a closed housing.” Answer 75—76. Appellant argues that in light of the Specification, “a skilled artisan would understand that the curved optical elements are disposed outside and exposed to natural wind conditions and are therefore not disposed inside a closed housing.” Appeal Br. 26 (emphasis omitted). We find this argument persuasive. As Appellant correctly argues, see id., the Specification refers to many examples to illustrate a device that is exposed to natural wind. See, e.g., Spec. 3 (successful commercialization depends on reliable operation at “a wide range of ambient temperatures and wind speeds.”), 31 (stating that the invention “allow[s] for the matching of heat sink performance across the array of receivers over a wide range of wind conditions and system elevations”), 89 (referring to “simulated wind flow through the heat sinks” and an “East-West field wind”), 90 (referring to the benefit of “any technology that accelerates the natural wind and convective currents through the heat sink”). The natural wind exposure as illustrated in the Specification is incompatible with the device being isolated from natural wind currents within a closed housing. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Appellant invented a device that is not disposed inside a closed housing. See Union Oil Co. of California v. Atl. Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The written description requirement does not require the applicant ‘to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, [instead] the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.’” (citation omitted)). Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1 st paragraph. 5 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 Rejections based on Horne Figures 2 and 3 of Home are reproduced below: FIG. 3 Figures 2 and 3 depict portions of a solar power concentrating unit, which includes a curved mirror 120, a photoelectronic receiver unit 115 that 6 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 includes optical element 116, photovoltaic cell 117, and heat sink 118, and housing surfaces 111, 113,114,121,123, and 130. Home 43^46. The Examiner states that “Home does not disclose that the housings (111 and 121) are completely enclosed. The reference must be taken for all that it teaches and Home does not disclose side panels on the housing 111 and 121.” Final Action 9. Thus, the Examiner finds that Home discloses the limitation “wherein the first and second curved optical elements are exposed to the atmosphere and natural wind currents.” See id. The Examiner also interprets the “exposed to the atmosphere and natural wind currents” limitation as merely intended use. See id. at 2. Indeed, the Examiner determines that “all language directed to the flow of air is constmed as intended use.” Id. at 10. Thus, the Examiner finds that “the heat exchanger (118) includes air flow passages . . . configured to allow a flow of air to pass through the heat exchanger on the second side of the solar receiver and in at least upward and downward directions.” Id. at 10. The Examiner identifies these airflow passages as shown in annotated Figure 3 of Home, below: Air flow passages 7 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 Id. at 14. The annotated Figure 3 has labels pointing to ellipses over heat sink 118. In another annotated version of Figure 3 (not reproduced here), the Examiner identifies surface 114 and the bottom surface (unlabeled) as the “airflow accelerator.” Id. at 13. Appellant argues that Home’s Fig. 8 discloses closed side panels in Fig. 8, and that nothing in Home discloses exposure to the atmosphere and natural wind currents. See Appeal Br. 15—16. Appellant also argues that “Home’s stmcture is incapable of guiding airflow through a space between a second curved optical element and an optoelectronic device” because it is an enclosed stmcture. Id. at 19. Also, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown how the device is configured to guide airflow through a space between the second curved optical element and the optoelectronic device. See id. We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the airflow limitations in independent claims 1 and 11 as merely intended use. “Statements in the claims that define and limit the device are material limitations, for purposes of. . . distinguishing from the prior art.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In claims 1 and 11, the stmcture of the claimed apparatuses is limited by the requirement that the curved optical elements are exposed to the atmosphere and natural wind currents, and the requirement that the airflow accelerator is configured to guide airflow in a particular way. Thus, these limitations have stmctural consequences and are not merely intended use. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each claim element in the prior art must be “arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner has not shown 8 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 that the apparatus disclosed in Home is configured such that (1) the curved mirrors would be exposed to natural wind currents, or (2) the “airflow accelerator” identified by the Examiner guides airflow as recited in claims 1 or 11. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11. Because the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 does not cure this deficiency, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12—19, 28—32, and 34—37 over Home. We further reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8— 19, 28—32, and 34—37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Home in view of Pauli, which relies on the same findings discussed above. Rejections based on Wares Figures 2 and 3 of Wares are reproduced below: 1 f 20 C y/' N'* A ''-■17 f/0 ■ , U • -j '•\S 17 •'" &'■ -i H 2 9 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 -< a of fX. Sa* 4 .V x?/ 26 -., f 7 Figures 2 and 3 depict, respectively, a sectional view of a photovoltaic device and an enlarged three-dimensional view of a photovoltaic device. See Wares Tflf 13—14. The device includes reflective element 17 comprising reflective surface 16 and plate member 18. A photovoltaic assembly 20 comprises photovoltaic strip 30, cooling fins 40, and backing plates 36. There is a convection gap 44 through fins 40. See id. 1135—40. The Examiner identifies surfaces 16 as the first and second “optical elements”, plate member 18 as the “airflow accelerator,” and photovoltaic assembly 20 as the optoelectronic device in claim 1. See Final Action 30— 32; Answer 68. The Examiner also identifies convection gap 44 as the “space between the second curved optical element and the optoelectronic device.” Final Action 32—33. As with the Home-based rejections, the Examiner states that “the limitations reciting air flow movement [are] constmed as intended use.” Id. at 32. 10 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 Appellant argues that “Wares does not disclose a separate airflow accelerator] that guides airflow between the reflector elements and the receptors 30,” and “does not expressly or inherently disclose guiding at least a portion of the airflow through a space between the second curved optical element and the optoelectronic device, as recited in Claim 1Appeal Br. 23. As discussed above, we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of limitations in claim 1 relating to guiding airflow as mere intended use, as the claimed structure must be configured to meet the functional air flow requirements specified in the claim. Wares discloses that the underside of each plate member 18 guides rising air through the cooling fins 40. See Wares 140. However, the Examiner has not shown that airflow is directed “towards the heat exchanger,. . . through a space between the second curved optical element and the optoelectronic device” as required in claim 1, or the equivalent limitation in claim 11. The Examiner also points to a second embodiment in Wares, reflected in Figure 11, as meeting the limitations of claim 1. See Answer 69—70. According to the Examiner, this figure shows that “the airflow accelerator is configured to guide at least a portion of the airflow through a space between the second curved optical element and the airflow accelerator.” Id. at 70. However, this finding does not correspond to the language of claim 1, which requires airflow between the second curved optical element and “the optoelectronic device.” See Appeal Br. 28. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that either the embodiment in Figures 2 and 3, or the alternative embodiment in Figure 11, discloses all the elements of claim 1. The Examiner does not cure this deficiency in the rejection of claim 11 or the 11 Appeal 2016-002829 Application 12/822,893 dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Wares, or the rejection of claims 5, 8, 16, 19, and 35—37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wares. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8— 19, 28—32, and 34—37 over Wares. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation