Hamid ABBASI et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2021

2020005296 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021)

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.
14/724,930 05/29/2015 Hamid Ali ABBASI GTI-1999 7571
42419 7590 08/31/2021
PAULEY ERICKSON & SWANSON
2800 WEST HIGGINS ROAD
SUITE 365
HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60169
EXAMINER
PILLAY, DEVINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HAMID ALI ABBASI
and DAVID F. CYGAN
____________

Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGE C. BEST, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 10, 11, 13–15, and 19–24 of
Application 14/724,930. Final Act. (August 8, 2019). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Gas Technology Institute as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
2
I. BACKGROUND
The ’930 Application describes a solar-infrared solar collector that
includes an infrared heater. Spec. 2. For ease of reference, we reproduce
Figure 1 of the Specification below.
Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of a solar-infrared
hybrid collector. Spec. 6.
As shown in the Figure, solar-infrared hybrid collector 10 includes
reflector 12, receiver 14, and infrared heater 16. Id. at 7. Infrared heater 16
provides infrared radiation to solar-infrared receiver 14 during periods when
demand for energy from receiver 14 is greater than the energy provided by
the sun. Id. at 4.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’930 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix. We have
italicized the limitations that are important to our analysis.
1. A solar-infrared hybrid collector comprising:
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
3
a reflector;
a photovoltaic receiver positioned in proximity to the reflector,
the photovoltaic receiver having one surface configured to
collect solar radiation from the sun via the reflector and infrared
radiation from a fuel-fired infrared heater source;
the fuel-fired infrared heater source positioned in proximity to
the photovoltaic receiver and configured to provide the infrared
radiation directly to the one surface of the photovoltaic receiver
configured to collect solar radiation from the sun via the
reflector and infrared radiation from the fuel-fired infrared
heater;
wherein the photovoltaic receiver converts solar radiation and
infrared radiation into at least one of electricity and thermal
energy, and
wherein the fuel-fired infrared heater is activated when a
demand for energy is greater than an energy provided by the
sun.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added).
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–3, 6, 10, 13, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Bruning2 and Streetman3.
Final Act. 4.

2 US 2007/0137690 A1, published June 21, 2007.
3 US 6,372,979 B1, issued April 16, 2002.
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
4
2. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Bruning, Streetman, and Ollier.4 Final
Act. 7.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Bruning, Streetman, and Ollier. Final Act. 7.
4. Claims 14, 15, and 19–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Bruning, Streetman, and Ollier. Final
Act. 8.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 10, 13, 23, and 24 over the combination of
Bruning and Streetman
Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection based upon the
limitations of independent claims 1 and 24. Appeal Br. 4–7. Appellant
presents additional, separate arguments for reversal of the rejection of claims
6 and 13. Id. at 7–8. Accordingly, we begin by addressing the independent
claims. We then address dependent claims 6 and 13 separately. Each
remaining dependent claim subject to this ground of rejection will stand or
fall with its parent independent claim.
1. Independent claims 1 and 24
Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claims 1 and 24
should be reversed because the combination of Bruning and Streetman does
not describe or suggest providing infrared radiation directly from a fuel-fired

4 WO 2012/136800 A1, published October 11, 2012. The Examiner cites US
2014/0166085 A1, published June 19, 2014 as the English language
equivalent. Appellant does not object.
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
5
infrared heater source to the photovoltaic receiver. Appeal Br. 4. According
to Appellant, the combined the descriptions of Bruning and Streetman would
not have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed
configuration without using Appellant’s disclosure as a foundation. Id. at 5.
Independent claim 1 specifies that the infrared heater source is
“configured to provide infrared radiation directly to the one surface of the
photovoltaic receiver configured to collect solar radiation from the sun via
the reflector and infrared radiation from the fuel-fired infrared heater
source.” Claim 1 (emphasis added). Claim 24 contains substantially similar
language. In rejecting claims 1 and 24, the Examiner found that Bruning
suggests each limitation of the independent claims except that “Bruning does
not disclose a fuel-fired infrared heater which provides infrared radiation to
the same surface of the photovoltaic receiver as the solar radiation is
applied.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner also found that Streetman discloses a
fuel fired infrared heater that provides additional radiation other than solar
radiation to solar cells and that a reflector can be provided to reflect infrared
radiation emitted by the heater onto the solar cells. Id. (citing Streetman
2:42–63). In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner further found
that Streetman’s fuel-fired heater emits infrared radiation in more than a
single direction and that some of this infrared radiation “will be applied
directly to the solar cells.” Advisory Act. I, 3 (October 24, 2019). See also
Advisory Act. II, 3 (November 8, 2019); Answer 10–11.
For the following reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 24
as unpatentable over the combination of Bruning and Streetman.
First, the Examiner relies upon Bruning as describing a photovoltaic
receiver having one surface to collect solar radiation from the sun via the
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
6
reflector. Final Act. 5. For ease of reference, we reproduce Bruning’s Figure
2 below.
Bruning’s Figure 2 is a schematic block diagram
showing Bruning’s apparatus for obtaining
radiant energy. Bruning ¶ 43.
Bruning’s light concentrator 30 comprises primary curved reflective
surface 12, which reflects incident visible and infrared radiation to
secondary reflector 14. Id. ¶ 62. Secondary reflector 14 allows infrared
radiation to pass through and strike infrared photovoltaic cell 16. Id.
Secondary reflector 14 also separates visible light into long wavelength
component V′ and short wavelength component V′′. Id. ¶ 63. Visible light
components V′ and V′′ are reflected by secondary reflector 14 and strike
photovoltaic cells 18′ and 18′′, respectively. Id. Photovoltaic cells 18′ and
18′′ are respectively optimized to convert long and short wavelength visible
light into electric energy. Id.
Bruning, therefore, does not describe or suggest the recited single
surface of a photovoltaic receiver configured to collect solar radiation from
the sun via the reflector and infrared radiation from the fuel-fired infrared
heater source. Rather, Bruning teaches dividing radiation into separate
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
7
components according to wavelength and using and optimized photovoltaic
cell for each component.
Bruning explains that stacked photovoltaic cells can efficiently
convert incident radiation over multiple wavelength ranges. Id. ¶¶ 7–9. Such
stacked photovoltaic cells, however, are described as costly to fabricate and
some combinations of materials cannot be stacked together. Id. ¶ 9. Bruning,
therefore, somewhat discourages the use of stacked photovoltaic cells.
The Examiner, however, does not find that Streetman describes the
use of a photovoltaic cell that converts both visible light and infrared
radiation into usable forms. Even if we were to assume that Streetman
describes such photovoltaic cells, the Examiner does not explain where in
Bruning’s device such photovoltaic cell would be located.
Thus, the Examiner has not made the requisite findings to create a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the limitation that the
combination of references describes or suggests provision of “infrared
radiation directly to the one surface of the photovoltaic receiver configured
to collect solar radiation from the sun via the reflector and infrared radiation
from the fuel-fired infrared heater source.”
Second, the Examiner has not explained how Streetman’s mantle for
converting natural gas into light should be sized and where in Bruning’s
apparatus it should be positioned. In the absence of findings or a reasoned
explanation on these points, we determine that the Examiner has not met the
burden of establishing an adequate prima facie case of obviousness. See In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
8
Thus, on the record before us, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and
24. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, and 23.
2. Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, we
have reversed the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of
claim 6 as obvious over the combination of Bruning and Streetman.
3. Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, we
have reversed the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of
claim 13 as obvious over the combination of Bruning and Streetman.
B. Rejection of claims 4 and 5 over the combination of Bruning,
Streetman, and Ollier
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1. For the reasons set forth above,
we have reversed the rejection of claim 1. Ollier does not cure the defects in
the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of claims 4 and
5.
C. Rejection of claim 11 over the combination of Bruning, Streetman,
and Ollier
Claim 11 depends from claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, we
have reversed the rejection of claim 1. Ollier does not cure the defects in the
rejection of claim 1. Thus we also reverse the rejection of claim 11.
D. Rejection of claims 14, 15, and 19–22 over the combination of
Bruning, Streetman, and Ollier
Claim 14 is an independent claim. In rejecting claim 14, the Examiner
relies upon Ollier for its description of a heat exchanger. Final Act. 9. The
Appeal 2020-005296
Application 14/724,930
9
Examiner, therefore, has not cure the defects in the combination of Bruning
and Streetman. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 15 and 19–22 depend from claim 14. As discussed, we have
reversed the rejection of claim 14. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of
claims 15 and 19–22.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 10, 13, 23,
24 103 Bruning, Streetman
1–3, 6, 10, 13,
23, 24
4, 5 103 Bruning, Streetman, Ollier 4, 5
11 103 Bruning, Streetman, Ollier 11
14, 15, 19–22 103 Bruning, Streetman, Ollier 14, 15, 19–22
Overall Outcome 1–6, 10, 11, 13–15, 19–24
REVERSED