Hachtmann, Bruce et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

11451604 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2020)

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.
11/451,604 06/13/2006 Bruce Hachtmann 7514-106 9627
97292 7590 09/02/2020
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
09/02/2020 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, DAVID PEARCE,
WILLIAM SANDERS, and BEN TARBELL

Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604
Technology Center 1700
____________

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

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 27, 29, 30, 45, and 47, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 3, 5–26, 28, 31–

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 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

2
44, and 46 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The following rejections are presented for appeal:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 27, 30, 45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Lebrun (US 3,553,030,
Jan. 5, 1971) and Cull (US 4,574,160, Mar. 4, 1986).
II. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Lebrun and Cull, and further in view of Kuchinski (US
2005/0072461 A1, Apr. 7, 2005 ).
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;
a third photovoltaic cell having a first polarity electrode on
a front side and a second polarity electrode on a back side;
a first interconnect comprising a first part of an electrically
insulating carrier and a first flexible, electrically conductive wire
comprising a metal and supported by the first part of the
electrically insulating carrier; and
a second interconnect comprising a second part of the
electrically insulating carrier and
a second flexible, electrically conductive wire comprising
the metal and supported by the second part of the electrically
insulating carrier,
wherein:
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

3
the first flexible, electrically conductive wire comprises the
metal wire which has:
a first part that is located on a bottom side of, and underlies,
a first portion of the first part of the electrically insulating carrier
and faces, extends over, and directly contacts the first polarity
electrode on the front side of the first photovoltaic cell,
a second part that is located on an opposite top side of, and
overlies, a second portion of the first part of the electrically
insulating carrier and faces, extends under, and directly contacts,
the second polarity electrode on the back side of the second
photovoltaic cell, and
a connecting part that connects the first part and the second
part of the first flexible, electrically conductive wire and is
embedded within the first part of the electrically insulating
carrier;
the first flexible, electrically conductive wire is absent
under the bottom side of the first part of the electrically insulating
carrier in an entire area of the second portion of the first part of
the electrically insulating carrier located under the back side of
the second photovoltaic cell;
the first flexible, electrically conductive wire transitions
from the bottom side of the first part of the electrically insulating
carrier to the opposite top side of the first part of the electrically
insulating carrier through the first part of the electrically
insulating carrier to avoid a shunt path at an edge of at least one
of the first photovoltaic cell and the second photovoltaic cell;
the first portion of the 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 first flexible, electrically conductive
wire electrically contacts 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;
the second portion of the first part of the electrically
insulating carrier extends over the back side of the second
photovoltaic cell, such that the connecting part of the first
flexible, electrically conductive wire electrically transitions
through the first part of the electrically insulating carrier and the
second part of the first flexible, electrically conductive wire
contacts the second polarity electrode on the back side of the
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

4
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; and
the second photovoltaic cell passes through a slot in the
insulating carrier between the first part and the second part of the
electrically insulating carrier.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).2
We consider the record to determine whether Appellant has identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections,” (citing
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential))).
Appellant argues for reversal of all of the rejected claims as an
undifferentiated group. See generally (Appeal Br. 13–34.) We, therefore,
select claim 1 as representative of the claims on appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Because we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s factual
findings, analysis, and conclusion, we adopt them as our own. We add the
following for emphasis only.
The Examiner finds Lebrun discloses photovoltaic modules
comprising a wire transiting through the opening (29) to make contact with

2 The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 4–8.)
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

5
back side of the second photovoltaic cell. The Examiner finds Lebrun does
not teach the second part of the first wire extending under and in direct
contact on the back side of the second photovoltaic cell such that the
conductive wire is absent under the bottom side of the first part of the
insulating carrier. (Final Act. 4–5; Lebrun figs. 8–10.) The Examiner finds
Cull teaches an electrical conductor for an interconnect that comprises at
least one flexible electrically conductive wire to provide mechanical and
electrical advantages. (Final Act. 5; Cull col. 7 ll. 11–57.) The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to form the connection of the solar
cell modules of Lebrun from flexible, electrically conductive wire to obtain
the advantages taught by Cull. (Final Act. 5–6.) The Examiner further
determines it would have been obvious to form the connection of wire
extending under and direct contact with the second cell as taught by Cull by
rearranging opening for the wire to go through the insulating carrier between
the cells. (Final Act. 5–6.)
Appellant argues the combined teachings of Lebrun and Cull fails to
disclose all of the claimed features of claim 1. (App. Br. 15–34.) Appellant
argues relocating the hole in tag 30 modifies the principle of operation of tag
30 and hole 29 of Lebrun. (App. Br. 19–23.) Appellant argues Cull does not
teach that filament 20 transitions through any component, much less that it
transitions through an insulating support member such as tag 30 of Lebrun.
(App. Br. 23–25.) Appellant argues it would not have been obvious to
incorporate the conductive wire of Cull into the structure of Lebrun to arrive
at the configuration of claim 1 without relying on impermissible hindsight.
(App. Br. 29.) Appellant specifically argues Lebrun’s material of elements
23 and 26 must be deposited on a surface to provide an electrical connection
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

6
and Lebrun provides no reason to replace this conductive material with a
free standing wire. (App. Br. 30.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The use of electrically
conductive wires for connecting opposite surfaces of photovoltaic cells such
as described by Lebrun is merely substituting one known element for
another to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 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
Lebrun 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.
Lebrun’s teachings regarding suitable electrical connections are not
limited to the scope of Appellant’s argument. Lebrun teaches the electrical
connection on opposite sides of the substrate is achieved by a variety of
techniques. (Lebrun cols. 5–6, Figs. 7–10.) Lebrun teaches the embodiment
depicted in figure 7 is one method of combining two opposite tags with
different metal zones for connecting a radiation-sensitive element whereas
figures 8–10 depict a different arrangement. (Lebrun col. 5 l. 10– col.6 l.
14.) 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 Lebrun.
Appellant’s arguments do not recognize that Lebrun envisages the use
of various techniques for the electrical connection between photovoltaic
cells. (Lebrun generally.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

7
recognized the suitability of electrically connecting photovoltaic cells from
opposite sides of the substrate as described by Lebrun 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. The cited
references establish a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
sufficient skill to determine the appropriate routing of electrically connecting
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 Lebrun and Cull does not teach
all claim elements because the combined device of Lebrun and Cull would
not have the feature of “the first flexible, electrically conductive wire is
absent under the bottom side of the first part of the electrically insulating
carrier in an entire area of the second portion of the first part of the
electrically insulating carrier located under the back side of second
photovoltaic cell,” as in claim 1. (App. Br. 16–17.)
Appellant’s argument lacks persuasive merit. Lebrun 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. (Lebrun Figs. 8–10.) As discussed above, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the suitability of using
known wires appropriately routed for connecting electrically the opposite
surfaces of photovoltaic cells. This would have included not routing wires
under only portions of the insulating carrier. Appellant has not explained
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

8
that the exclusion of wires under a portion of the insulating carrier provides
unexpected results.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s modification of Lebrun to
incorporate an unsupported metal strip fails to show at least a connecting
part that is “embedded” within the electrically insulating carrier as required
by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 17–19.) Appellant specifically argues
Specification paragraph 29 and figure 6C disclose how the wire 15 is
embedded within carrier 13. (App. Br. 17.)
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The term
embedded does not appear in the Specification. Thus we look to descriptions
relied upon by Appellant for guidance on how the term is utilized in the
claimed invention. The present Specification paragraph 29 provides for
description of figure 6A–6C and states the following:
The electrical connection can be configured as shown in Figures
6A-6C, where the traces 15a, 15b are printed on both sides of the
carrier film 13. The traces 15a and 15b are electrically
contiguous from front to back of the carrier film 13 in region 64
(i.e., the conductor extends through the carrier 13 or around the
edge of the carrier to connect traces 15a and 15b). The back side
of the portion of the cell 3b that is inserted in the slot 63 makes
contact with trace 15b there only.
(Spec. ¶ 29.)
The Specification describes the conductor as extending through the
carrier or around the edge of the carrier as depicted in figure 6A–6C.
Appellant has not directed us to descriptions in the Specification that
illustrate the significance and the size of the opening but allows the
conductor to extend from one side of the carrier to the other. The
illustrations in the figures depict a wire/conductor that is electrically
contiguous from front to back of the carrier film. Appellant has not
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

9
persuasively argued that the combination of Lebrun and Cull would not have
suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art a conductor that is
electrically continuous from one side of the carrier to the other. Appellant
has not persuasively established that the electrically continuous conductor
from claimed invention is patentably distinct from the combination of
Lebrun and Cull.
Appellant argues the device of claim 1 provides an unexpected
advantage over the devices of Lebrun and Cull because it decreases the
chance of short circuit between the p side and the n side of the same solar
cell. (App. Br. 32–33.)
We do not find Appellant’s arguments convincing because they are
not supported by persuasive evidence. Unexpected results must be
established by factual evidence, and attorney statements are insufficient to
establish unexpected results. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470–71
(Fed. Cir. 1997). As set forth above, Appellant has not persuasively argued
that the combination of Lebrun and Cull would not have suggested to a
person of ordinary skill in the art a conductor that is electrically continuous
from one side of the carrier to the other.

For the foregoing reasons and those the Examiner presents, we sustain
the appealed rejections.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 27,
30, 45, 47 103(a) Lebrun, Cull
1, 2, 4, 27,
30, 45, 47
Appeal 2019-005019
Application 11/451,604

10
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
29 103(a) Lebrun, Cull, Kuchinski 29
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 27,
29, 30, 45,
47

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED