Ex Parte Auvray et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 3, 2019

12681679 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/681,679 09/30/2010 Stephane Auvray
22850 7590 06/05/2019
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
356997USOPCT 6068
EXAMINER
SMITH, ERIC R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2019 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHANE AUVRA Y and NIKOLAS JANKE
Appeal2017-009936
Application 12/681,679
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision maintaining grounds of rejection against claims 19, 21, 22, 24, and
25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed April 5, 2010; Non-Final Office
Action ("Non-Final Act.") dated November 3, 2016; Appellants' Appeal
Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed March 10, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
dated May 25, 2017, and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July
14, 2017.
2 Appellants identify Saint-Gobain Glass France as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009936
Application 12/681,679
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 19, 21, 22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Schmitt, 3 Hameit, 4 and Mellott. 5
II. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Schmitt, Hameit, Mellott, and Lu. 6
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a light collector, such as may
be used in a solar cell. Spec. 1. The disclosed light collector includes a
molybdenum-based conductive layer on the top surface of a glass substrate,
and an absorbent agent formed as layer of chalcopyrite material over the
electrode. Id. It is stated that during manufacture of the light collector
crystallization of the chalcopyrite absorbent agent may be impacted by Na
migration from the glass substrate of one light collector to the conductive
layer of another light collector when stored together. Id. at 2-3. The
claimed invention addresses Na migration by providing a barrier layer on the
rear face of the glass substrate. Id. at 9. Claim 19-the sole independent
claim on appeal-reads:
Claim 19: A substrate, comprising:
a glass substrate comprising a top surface and a bottom
surface,
a bottom electrode comprising a molybdenum-based
conductive layer in contact with the top surface of the glass
substrate,
3 US 5,252,139, issued October 12, 1993.
4 US 2003/0121542 Al, published July 3, 2003.
5 US 2007/0116966 Al, published May 24, 2007.
6 US 2009/0032098 Al, published February 5, 2009.
2
Appeal2017-009936
Application 12/681,679
at least one alkali-metal barrier layer in contact with the
bottom surface of the glass substrate, and
a layer of absorbent chalcopyrite material in contact with
the molybdenum-based conductive layer,
wherein an alkali-metal barrier layer is not in contact with
both the molybdenum-based conductive layer and the top surface
of the glass substrate.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key
recitation in dispute).
OPINION
Appellants rely on the same arguments for each of the above
rejections, and do not separately argue the claims. 7 See generally Appeal
Br. and Reply Br. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we select
claim 19 as representative. Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand or fall with this
representative claim.
The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Schmitt
discloses a glass substrate, conductive layer, and chalcopyrite layer,
positioned as recited in claim 19, for use in a photovoltaic device. Compare
Non-Final Act. 2 and Ans. 6, with Appeal Br. 3-7 and Reply Br. 1-2. The
Examiner also finds that Schmitt teaches the disclosed structure is
configured to be at least partially transparent to light in both directions
perpendicular to the glass substrate, so that the photovoltaic device may be
used as part of a window. Ans. 6-7; see also Schmitt 1 :9-15 ("The
invention relates to structures having a characteristic of partial transparency,
7 Although Appellants separately mention claims 24 and 25, the argument
presented is the same as is presented in connection with claim 19. See
Appeal Br. 6-7.
3
Appeal2017-009936
Application 12/681,679
combining the conventional functions of a solar structure capable of
generating an electric current with that of a panel partially allowing light to
pass. Two fields of application are particularly aimed at: panels such as
building window panels and thin-film solar modules and cells."). Schmitt is
silent as to any coating on the bottom surface of the glass substrate.
However, the Examiner finds that Mellott teaches providing a silicon oxide
anti-reflective layer on glass, such as a window, to improve light
transmission. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 7. In light of these disclosures, the
Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to provide
a silicon oxide anti-reflective layer on the bottom surface of Schmitt's glass
substrate. Id.
Appellants argue that Schmitt's structure is configured to receive
incident light through the top surface of the device, and that Mellott teaches
providing an anti-reflective coating on the surface which receives incident
light. Appeal Br. 4--6. For those reasons, according to Appellants, there
would have been no reason to provide Mellott's anti-reflective coating on
the opposite or bottom surface of Schmitt's glass substrate. Id. at 6. The
Examiner responds that Schmitt illustrates light as incident on both the upper
and lower surfaces of the disclosed structure. Ans. 6. Particularly, Schmitt
teaches incident light traversing from above structure to reach the active
layers configured to generate electric current (Schmitt 3: 66-68) while also
enabling a person to see through the structure "in the reverse direction" (id.
4:62---66). Appellants' argument regarding light incident on the upper
surface of Schmitt's structure neither addresses nor shows reversible error in
the Examiner's finding that providing Mellott's anti-reflective coating on the
4
Appeal2017-009936
Application 12/681,679
opposite bottom side of Schmitt's structure would have benefitted the
desired ability to see through the structure in the opposite direction.
Appellants also argue that anti-reflection oxide layers are consistent
with Schmitt's layer 7 and, therefore, would have been inconsistent with
placing an anti-reflective coating on the opposite side of Schmitt's glass
substrate. Appeal Br. 6. Schmitt's layer 7 is a transparent electrode
configured to operate as an active component of a solar cell. Schmitt 3: 10-
22. Appellants do not explain why the composition of Schmitt's electrode
layer 7 refutes the Examiner's finding regarding use of an anti-reflective
coating on the bottom surface of Schmitt's glass substrate to enhance
visibility through the substrate.
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that the Examiner's reasoning
would "change the express orientation disclosed in the asserted art," and
"tum the structures in the asserted art upside down." Reply Br. 1 (internal
quotes omitted). We disagree. The Examiner's finding merely regards an
additional coating on the bottom surface of Schmitt's device. We see no
finding or determination in the grounds of rejection that would involve
altering the orientation of Schmitt's device.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us
of reversible error. The Examiner's rejections are sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25 is
affirmed.
5
Appeal2017-009936
Application 12/681,679
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6