Ex Parte Ransquin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

10510183 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHAN RANSQUIN and LAURENT D’ABRIGEON
____________

Appeal 2010-012450
Application 10/510,183
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK and ANDREW H.
METZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

METZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's adverse
decision finally rejecting claims 1 through 4 and 7. Claims 5 and 6, the
only other claims remaining in the application, have been objected to by the
Examiner in his Answer as being dependent on a finally rejected claim but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Accordingly, only the
patentability of claims 1 through 4 and 7 is before us for our consideration.
Appeal 2010-012450
Application 10/510,183

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention discloses an improved photovoltaic generator that
concentrates incident light from an inclined plane reflector on a photovoltaic
cell for the production of electricity and protects against additional heating
caused by this concentration. Heating in a photovoltaic cell leads to a reduction
in photovoltaic efficiency because performance of photovoltaic cells is
degraded as their temperature rises. Appellants’ improvement is to a prior art
photovoltaic generator. The prior art photovoltaic generator comprises an array
of photovoltaic cells 101 covered by transparent plates 102 which serve to
protect the surface of the cells and filter received direct solar radiation and
reflect unwanted radiation. Some of the unwanted radiation is absorbed by the
plate 102 and some of the unwanted radiation reaches the photovoltaic cell
where it is absorbed without producing electricity but which produces heat.
Ordinarily, this problem is resolved by surrounding the photovoltaic panel array
with inclined plane reflectors or concentrators, 106. The inclined plane
reflectors 106 reflect additional solar radiation towards the surface of the
transparent plates covering the photovoltaic cells in addition to the direct solar
radiation that reaches the transparent plate covering the photovoltaic cell. The
solar radiation striking the concentrator is reflected toward the surface of the
transparent plate covering the photovoltaic cell and part of the flux is absorbed
by the transparent plate to excite the photovoltaic cell and part of the flux is
reflected away from the cell. See Fig. 1, labeled as “Prior Art.”
However, these prior art reflectors absorb very little of the incident flux
and reflect most of it in the form of reflected light which renders the
Appeal 2010-012450
Application 10/510,183

3
concentrators relatively cold. As relatively cold bodies the concentrators attract
most circulating molecules and those molecules ultimately contaminate the
surface of the reflector and reduce the reflective efficiency of the concentrators
and also the overall efficiency of the photovoltaic generator. Appellants
overcome this problem by covering the surface of the concentrator with a filter
which eliminates in the light reflected by the concentrator towards the
photovoltaic cell most of the “unwanted” radiation, that is, radiation that does
not excite the photovoltaic cell to produce electricity. The filter that covers the
concentrator may be made from materials that absorb the “unwanted” portion of
the light.
Claim 1, the only independent claim before us for our consideration, is
reproduced below for a more facile understanding of Appellants’ invention.

Claim 1. A concentrator photovoltaic generator, comprising at least one
photoelectric cell covered by a transparent protection layer and further
comprising a reflecting concentrator for directing luminous flux toward said
photoelectric cell, said concentrator having a reflecting surface for reflecting
incident radiation, characterized in that the reflecting surface of said
concentrator is covered by a filter such that incident radiation must pass
through said filter to reach said reflecting surface in order to be reflected, and
after reflection by said reflecting surface must pass through said filter in order
to be directed toward said photoelectric cell, said filter eliminating in the
luminous flux directed by the concentrator toward the photoelectric cell most of
the “unwanted” radiation that is not able to excite the photoelectric cell.
[(Emphasis added.)]

The references of record which are being relied on as evidence of
obviousness by the examiner are:
Chappell et al. (Chappell) 4,200,472 Apr. 29, 1980
Horne et al. (Horne) 5,611,870 Mar. 18, 1997
Appellants’ admitted prior art, that is, Fig. 1 as described in Appellants’
specification. (AAPA)
Appeal 2010-012450
Application 10/510,183

4
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable as the claimed subject matter would have been obvious from
AAPA considered with Horne.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable as the claimed subject matter would have been obvious from
AAPA considered with Horne in further combination with the disclosure of
Chappell.
OPINION
Each of the Examiner’s proffered rejections is founded on the rationale
that Horne discloses that the use of a silicon prism concentrator between a filter
and a photovoltaic cell optimizes radiant energy reaching said photovoltaic cell
and that Horne teaches that by optimizing the radiant energy reaching the
photovoltaic cell energy conversion efficiency of the cell is optimized. While
conceding that the admitted prior art (Fig. 1) does not show a filter covering the
surface of the inclined plane reflector or concentrator 106 the Examiner, after
describing the arrangement of components in Fig. 36 of Horne, concludes that it
would have been obvious to use the filter array from Fig. 36 of Horne to cover
the inclined plane reflector 106 in the admitted prior art photovoltaic generator
of Fig. 1 of the instant application for the purpose of optimizing energy
conversion efficiency of the prior art photovoltaic generator. We disagree.
As correctly observed by Appellants in their Brief, the filter array
described as Fig. 36 in Horne is deployed directly in contact with and over the
top of the photovoltaic cell 174. In Appellants’ claimed photovoltaic generator
the inclined plane reflector does have a filter on its surface but the reflector is
located remote from and not in direct contact with the photovoltaic cell. Thus,
Appeal 2010-012450
Application 10/510,183

5
in Appellants’ invention light striking the filter 206 covering the inclined
reflector/concentrator is divided in two portions. A first portion 207, useful for
photoelectric conversion, penetrates the filter and is reflected by the
reflector/concentrator 106 in the form of a flux 217 which emerges from the
inclined face of the filter 206 where it is refracted to form beam 208 which is
directed toward the upper face of the filter layer 102 protecting the photovoltaic
cells 101 where it is refracted as 209 to excite the photovoltaic cells. The
second portion of the flux corresponds to wavelengths of light not able to be
used for photovoltaic conversion and is totally reflected by the filter 206 to
form a flux 218 that is directed away from the array. We have carefully read
and reviewed Horne, especially those sections to which the Examiner has
directed our attention and find that Horne does not teach or suggest a
concentrator wherein radiation passes through a filter to reach a reflecting
surface of a reflector/concentrator where useful radiation is reflected, then
emerges from the filter and is refracted and directed towards a photovoltaic cell
and “unwanted” radiation is directed away from the photovoltaic array. In other
words, we find that Horn does not teach or suggest a particular
concentrator/filter/photovoltaic cell arrangement that is capable of performing
the function recited in claim 1.
The Examiner’s stated rationale for making the proposed modification of
the admitted prior art with the filter/concentrator/photovoltaic cell combination
of Horne is stated to be for the purpose of optimizing energy conversion
efficiency of the admitted prior art system. Ans. 10. While we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that both Appellants and Horne seek to improve the
efficiency of energy conversion of the photovoltaic cells in their respective
systems, the claimed invention is not directed to a method of optimizing energy
Appeal 2010-012450
Application 10/510,183

6
conversion efficiency but is directed to the physical structure as recited in claim
1 and comprising various components arranged in a particular alignment to
achieve a particular result. Horne does not teach, suggest or disclose such an
arrangement. Moreover, the Examiner admits that because the admitted prior art
utilizes a concentrator to concentrate light and then direct it to the photovoltaic
cell “one skilled in the art would realize that there is no need for a second
concentrator for the same purpose.” Ans. 8. Nevertheless, the Examiner’s
proposed combination of the admitted prior art with Horne requires two
concentrators.
The Examiner’s continued reference in his Answer to what “AAPA in
view of Horne discloses” evidences a fundamental misunderstanding by the
Examiner of the difference between what references teach or disclose and what
a proposed combination of references would have suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. What the AAPA and Horne disclose is a question of
fact and Appellants and the Examiner agree with respect to what the references
describe. The ultimate issue of obviousness, on which the Appellants and the
Examiner disagree, is a question of law based on the underlying facts. Based on
this record, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time Appellants made their
invention.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
REVERSED
ssl