PTAB

IPR2014-00386

Panel Claw, Inc. v. SunPower Corporation

Title: Thermally Regulated Photovoltaic Roofing Assembly
Brief Description: The ’788 patent describes a photovoltaic (PV) roofing assembly that uses "pre-formed spacers" to support PV modules above a roof surface. This configuration creates an air gap that allows for convective fluid flow, primarily air, to regulate the temperature of the modules, purportedly eliminating the need for roof-penetrating fasteners for hold-down.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Brown (German Patent Application DE 2758067).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brown anticipates every limitation of the challenged claims. Brown discloses a solar panel system supported on a flat roof subsurface by at least one weighted support block, which provides anchoring without requiring roof penetration. Petitioner contended that Brown’s support blocks, brackets, and fasteners are the claimed "pre-formed spacers." These components elevate the solar panels from the roof surface, creating an air gap that allows for convective cooling, thereby teaching the claimed "means for regulating the temperature." Dependent claims were also allegedly taught, as Brown shows the panels can be inclined for increased sun exposure (claim 5), are joined to the spacers to form integral units (claim 3), and are arranged with joints between them for drainage and pressure equalization (claim 4). The method claims 16 and 17 were argued to be anticipated as Brown teaches the assembly of this system.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Stiebel (German Utility Model Patent DE 7913751).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Stiebel discloses a mounting system for installing numerous interconnected solar panels on a flat roof. The system uses support brackets attached to blocks and adjustable support struts to hold the solar panels at an incline. Petitioner mapped these brackets and struts to the "pre-formed spacers" limitation. This arrangement separates the PV modules from the roof, creating an air gap that enables heat transfer to a convecting fluid (air) and thus provides the "means for regulating the temperature." The system is taught as being installed on a flat roof without penetration. Petitioner argued Stiebel also discloses the dependent claim features, including the formation of integral units with a top surface joined to the module (claim 3) and the creation of a tapered profile for sun exposure (claim 5).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Russell (an IEEE publication from 1993 titled "PV Array Designs for Flat-Roof Buildings").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Russell describes a ballasted, non-penetrating mounting system for flat-roof PV arrays that anticipates the challenged claims. The system utilizes "Roof-Jacks" and metal trays to support PV panel assemblies. Petitioner equated the "Roof-Jacks" to the claimed "pre-formed spacers." Russell explicitly states the bottom edge of the panel is 6 inches above the roof, creating a significant space for airflow which serves as the "means for regulating the temperature." Petitioner contended that Russell’s disclosure of installing arrays of twelve PV panel assemblies in rows satisfies the limitations of adjoining integral units with joints between them (claim 4), and its teaching of inclining the panels 10-15 degrees from horizontal meets the tapered profile and sun exposure limitations (claim 5).

"Means for Regulating Temperature" (Claims 1-5): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed functionally as "any component or mechanism causing or permitting a fluid or a substance, such as air, to contact the bottom side of the photovoltaic module to permit heat transfer from the photovoltaic module to the fluid or substance." This broad construction was central to Petitioner's argument, allowing it to assert that any prior art creating an air gap for convective cooling met this means-plus-function limitation.
"Pre-Formed Spacers" and "Supporting Spacers" (Claims 2-5, 16, 17): Petitioner argued these terms should be construed broadly as "any structure capable of supporting a photovoltaic module while creating a space for a convecting fluid, such as air, to contact the backside of the photovoltaic module." This construction was crucial for mapping the varied support structures disclosed in the prior art (e.g., Brown’s blocks and brackets, Stiebel’s struts, and Russell’s "Roof-Jacks") onto the claimed spacer elements.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-5, 16, and 17 of the ’788 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or §103.