Hachtmann, Bruce et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

11451616 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2019)

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.
11/451,616 06/13/2006 Bruce Hachtmann 7514-102 9431
22208 7590 12/26/2019
The Marbury Law Group, PLLC
11800 SUNRISE VALLEY DRIVE
15TH FLOOR
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
TRINH, THANH TRUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
ptonotices@marburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE HACTMANN,
SHEFALI JAISWAL, PUTHUR PAULSON,
WILLIAM SANDERS, and BEN TARBELL

Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 9, 20, 21, and 29–31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Beijing
Apollo Ding rong Solar Technology Co., Ltd.. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

2
The following rejections are presented for appeal:
I. Claims 1, 3, 20, 21, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Luch (US 2006/0180195
A1, Aug. 17, 2006) and Cull (US 4,574,160, Mar. 4, 1986).
II. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Luch and Cull, and further in view of Lebrun (US
3,553,030, Jan. 5, 1971).
Appellant’s invention relates to photovoltaic modules having an
integrated current collection and interconnection configuration. (Spec. ¶ 1.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from
Appellant’s Brief below:
1. A photovoltaic module, comprising:
a first photovoltaic cell having a first polarity electrode on a
front side and a second polarity electrode on a back side;
a second photovoltaic cell having a first polarity electrode on a
front side and a second polarity electrode on a back side; and
a collector-connector which is configured to collect current from
the first photovoltaic cell and to electrically connect the first
photovoltaic cell with the second photovoltaic cell;
wherein:
the collector-connector comprises an electrically insulating
carrier and at least one electrical conductor;
the at least one electrical conductor comprises at least one
flexible, electrically conductive wire supported by the electrically
insulating carrier;
the at least one flexible, electrically conductive wire has a first
part located on a bottom surface of the electrically insulating carrier
facing the first polarity electrode on the front side of the first
photovoltaic cell, and a second part located on an opposite top surface
of the electrically insulating carrier facing the second polarity
electrode on the back side of the second photovoltaic cell, and a third
part that is connected to the first part and the second part and extends
through an opening in the electrically insulating carrier from the
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

3
bottom surface of the electrically insulating carrier to the top surface
of the electrically insulating carrier;
a first part of the electrically insulating carrier is located over the
front side of the first photovoltaic cell such that the first part of the at
least one flexible, electrically conductive wire extends over, and
physically and electrically contacts, a portion of a front surface of the
first polarity electrode on the front side of the first photovoltaic cell to
collect current from the first polarity electrode on the front side of the
first photovoltaic cell;
a second part of the electrically insulating carrier extends
between the first photovoltaic cell and the second photovoltaic cell
and over the back side of the second photovoltaic cell, such that the
second part of the at least one flexible, electrically conductive wire
extends underneath, and physically and electrically contacts, a back
surface of the second polarity electrode on the back side of the second
photovoltaic cell to electrically connect the first polarity electrode on
the front side of the first photovoltaic cell to the second polarity
electrode on the back side of the second photovoltaic cell;
the at least flexible, electrically conductive wire is absent under
the bottom surface of the electrically insulating carrier in an entire
area of the second part of the electrically insulating carrier located
under the back side of the second photovoltaic cell;
the first polarity electrode of the first photovoltaic cell comprises
an optically transparent front side electrode which is adapted to face
the Sun; and
the second polarity electrode of the second photovoltaic cell
comprises a back side electrode which is adapted to face away from
the Sun.
OPINION
Claims 1, 3, 20, 21, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Luch and Cull.2 We limit our
discussion to the independent claim 1 as argued by Appellant. 37 C.F.R.

2 A complete statement of the Examiner’s rejection appears in the Final
action. (Final Act. 3–9.)
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

4
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 3, 20, 21, and 29–31 stand or fall with
independent claim 1.
The Examiner finds Luch discloses photovoltaic modules comprising
at least one electrical conductor comprising fingers and a bus that differs
from the claimed invention in that Luch does not specifically state the at
least one electrical conductor for the collector-connector (interconnect)
comprises at least one flexible electrically conductive wire. (Final Act. 3–6;
Luch figs. 4–8.) The Examiner finds Cull teaches an electrical conductor for
an interconnect that comprises at least one flexible electrically conductive
wire to provide highly conductive electrical interconnections which are
resistant to normally experienced mechanical and thermal stresses. (Final
Act. 6; Cull col. 3 ll. 31–38, col. 10 l. 50 through col. 11 l. 6.) The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to form the collector interconnect of
Luch from flexible, electrically conductive wire to obtain the advantages
taught by Cull. (Final Act. 6–7.)
Appellant argues neither Cull nor Luch teaches or suggests how the
free standing wires of Cull can pass through openings in an electrically
insulating carrier to arrive at the configuration of claim 1 without relying on
impermissible hindsight. (App. Br. 9.) Appellant specifically argues Luch’s
material of elements 26 must be deposited on a surface and is present around
the holes through the elements 10 to provide an electrical connection. (App.
Br. 13.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The use of electrically
conductive wires for connecting opposite surfaces of photovoltaic cells such
as described by Luch is merely substituting one known element for another
to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

5
401 (2007). “Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another
need not be present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout, 675
F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). The Examiner’s explanation of the reasons a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of
Luch and Cull is sufficient when an allowance is made for “the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Luch’s teachings regarding suitable electrical connections are not
limited to the scope of Appellant’s argument. Luch teaches the electrical
connection on opposite sides of the substrate is achieved by a variety of
techniques including “fingers” and “straps.” (Luch ¶¶ 87–92.) Luch teaches
the embodiment depicted in figure 13 is one method of combining
interconnected straps depicted in the other figures. A person of ordinary
skill would have reasonably expected that other well known techniques for
making an electrical connection between photovoltaic cells would have been
suitable for the invention of Luch.
Appellant has not directed us to evidence that establishes Luch only
relies on the electrical connection being achieved by having electrically
conductive material solely at the through hole portion. To the contrary, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the suitability of
electrically connecting photovoltaic cells from opposite sides of the substrate
as described by Luch utilizing recognized techniques. (See Cull). A person
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that wires are suitable for
connecting electrically photovoltaic cells from opposite sides of a substrate
as described by Cull. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
sufficient skill to determine the appropriate routing of electrically connecting
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

6
wires for photovoltaic cells. Appellant has not disputed that the use of
electrically connecting wires were known to persons of ordinary skill in the
art.
Appellant argues the combination of Luch and Cull does not teach all
claim elements because the combined device of Luch and Cull would not
have the feature of the “wire is absent under the bottom surface of the
electrically insulating carrier in an entire area of the second part of the
electrically insulating carrier located under the back side of the second
photovoltaic cell” as in claim 1. (App. Br. 10.)
Appellant’s argument lacks persuasive merit. Luch teaches that the
electrical connection is absent under the bottom surface of the electrically
insulating carrier in an entire area of the second part of the electrically
insulating carrier. (Luch Figure 13.) As discussed above, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the suitability of utilizing
known wires appropriately routed for connecting electrically the opposite
surfaces of photovoltaic cells. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the appropriate routing of wires for connecting photovoltaic
cells. This would have included excluding routing wires under only portions
of the insulating carrier. Appellant has not explained that the exclusion of
wires under a portion of the insulating carrier provides unexpected results.
For the foregoing reasons and those the Examiner presents, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 3, 20, 21, and 29–31.
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

7
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Luch and Cull, and further in view of
Lebrun.3 (Final Act. 8–9.)
The Examiner finds Luch discloses photovoltaic module comprising
at least one electrical conductor comprising fingers and a bus that differs
from the claimed invention in that Luch does not disclose the electrically
insulating carrier comprising a sheet containing a plurality of slots such that
the photovoltaic cells pass through the slots to make the interconnection.
(Final Act. 8–9.) The Examiner finds Lebrun teaches interconnected
photovoltaic cells connected through slots between the front interconnect
pattern (metal zone at tag 30) and back interconnect pattern (hole 29) such
that the first photovoltaic cell passes through a first slot and the second
photovoltaic cell passes through the second slot to make interconnection
(Final Act. 9; Lebrun figs. 8–10.) The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to modify the photovoltaic module of Luch by using an
electrically insulating carrier comprising a sheet containing a plurality of
slots and the interconnect patterns with the slots being located between the
front interconnect pattern and the back interconnect pattern such that the first
photovoltaic cell passes through a first slot and the second photovoltaic cell
passes through a second slot to make the interconnection as taught by
Lebrun. (Final Act. 9.)
Appellant argues there is no reason to import just the flexible sheet of
Lebrun into the device of Luch without also substituting the conductive
fingers 26 of Luch with the metallized tags of Lebrun. (App. Br. 22.)

3 A complete statement of the Examiner's rejection appears in the final
action. (Final Act. 8–9.)
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

8
Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to explain how any increased
mechanical independence of the solar cells or greater resistance to thermal
shock would be imparted by the insulating carrier of Lebrun over the
flexible fingers of Luch. (App. Br. 23.)
Contrary to Appellants’ position, it is not necessary to physically
incorporate the flexible sheet and metallized tags as described by Lebrun in
the invention of Luch to render obvious the claimed invention. See In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be
incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not
whether the references could be physically combined but whether the
claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a
whole.”); “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also Sneed, 710 F.2d at
1550 (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re
Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
In the present case, Lebrun describes an electrically insulating flexible
support material having incisions across the thickness of the support which
allows the electric interconnection of the radiation-sensitive elements.
Lebrun also discloses the mechanical fixation to the support are obtained in
part by the tags and the metallized surface portions. (Lebrun col. 2 ll. 39–
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

9
48.) Lebrun further discloses the thickness of the flexible support can vary
according to need (Lebrun col. 4 ll. 55–64.) This arrangement establishes
that electrically insulating material can be disposed between photovoltaic
modules (radiation sensitive elements). As explained above, the
combination of Luch and Cull establishes the obviousness of utilizing wires
to connect photovoltaic cells. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected that the connecting wires could pass through the
openings within the insulating material. Consequently, the evidence of
record supports the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to form the photovoltaic module of Luch
by using an electrically insulating carrier comprising a sheet containing a
plurality of slots wherein the slots allows for interconnected photovoltaic
cells connected through the slots.
Lebrun discloses the insulating flexible support material has physical,
chemical, and mechanical properties that are expected to remain constant
over a wide temperature range. (Lebrun 2 ll. 49–54.) Photovoltaic cells
separated by the inclusion of such an insulating flexible support material
would have resulted in a combination that has the properties which are
expected to remain constant over a wide temperature range. Consequently, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected thermal
stability would have been imparted by the insulating carrier of Lebrun.
For the foregoing reasons and those the Examiner presents, we sustain
the appealed rejection.
Appeal 2018-007456
Application 11/451,616

10
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 20, 21,
29–31 103(a) Luch, Cull
1, 3, 20,
21, 29–31
9 103(a) Luch, Cull, Lebrun 9
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 9, 20,
21, 29–31

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED