Ex Parte Chhajed et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201612736278 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121736,278 12/17/2010 Sameer Chhajed 22428 7590 05/25/2016 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 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. 047182-0209 1670 EXAMINER BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1757 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMBER CHHAJED, JONG KYU KIM, SHAWN-YU LIN, MEI- LING KUO, FRANK W. MONT, DAVID J. POXSON, E. FRED SCHUBERT, MARTIN F. SCHUBERT Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's May 17, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 1-17 ("Final Act."). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention is directed to antireflective coatings which may be used with any suitable device in which antireflective coatings are used, such as photodetectors and solar cells (Spec. 37). The antireflective coating has an average total reflectance of less than 10%, over a spectrum of wavelengths of 400-1100 nm and a range of angles of incidence of 0-90 degrees with respect to a surface normal of the anti-reflection coating (Abstract). The Specification states that "average total reflectance" is calculated by integration of the reflectivity function R(A.,8) over the appropriate incident angle and wavelength ranges (Spec. 23-24). Claims 1 and 3 are representative and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix: 1. An anti-reflection coating, wherein the anti-reflection coating has an average total reflectance of less than 10% over a spectrum of wavelengths of 400-1100 nm and a range of angles of incidence of 0-90 degrees with respect to a surface normal of the anti-reflection coating. 3. The anti-reflection coating of claim 1, comprising at least one porous layer and at least one non-porous layer. 2 Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menna2 in view of Xi. 3 II. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menna in view of Xi and Dammel. 4 DISCUSSION With regards to Rejection I, Appellants only offer separate substantive arguments for claims 1 and 3 (Appeal Br. 8-16). Moreover, Appellants do not make separate arguments with respect to Rejection II. Accordingly, our analysis will focus on claims 1 and 3. The Examiner finds that Menna teaches an antireflection coating with a porous silicon anti-reflective layer which has an effective reflectance coefficient lower than 5% in the wavelength region from 3 50 to 1150 nm (Final Act 2-3, citing Menna, Abstract). The Examiner further finds that that the foregoing teaching "reads on the limitation, 'an anti-reflection coating, wherein the anti-reflection coating has an average total reflectance of less than 10% over a spectrum of wavelengths of 400-1100"' (Final Act. 3): The reflectance coefficient is interpreted to be the same as the average total reflectance because the reflectance coefficient is 2 Menna et al., Porous silicon in solar cells: A review and a description of its application as an AR coating, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 37, 13-24 (1995). 3 Xi et al., Optical thin-film materials with low refractive index for broadband elimination of Fresnel reflection, Nature Pho tonics 1, 17 6-179 (March 1, 2007). 4 Dammel et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,274,295 Bl, issued August 14, 2001. 3 Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 the integral of the average value of the reflection coefficient at each wavelength, 'A, weighted by the number of photons, N('A), in the solar spectrum at that wavelength (page 20 lines 15-19) and it is the examiner's position that this is the same as the average total reflectance because it represents a range of values that read on the reflective properties of the claimed antireflection coating. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner also finds that Menna does not explicitly teach that the anti-reflection coating exhibits the claimed reflectance over a range of angles of incidence of 0-90 degrees with respect to a surface normal of the anti-reflection coating (id.). The Examiner finds that Xi teaches antireflection coatings that have reflectivity percent less than 10% between the incident angles of 0 to about 80 degrees (Final Act. 3--4, citing Xi, Fig. 2c ). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to include the reflectivity over the range of incident angles as taught by Xi with the anti-reflection coating from Menna because it would have been obvious that these omnidirectional antiretlection coatings have a near-optimum quintic-index profile for a graded index anti- reflection coating (Final Act. 4, citing Xi, p. 176 column 2, lines 24-37). Appellants argue that (a) all features of claim 1 are not disclosed in Menna or Xi, (b) the Examiner has not adequately explained why a person of skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Menna and Xi, ( c) Xi teaches away from the appealed claims and from the combination of Menna and Xi, and (d) the proposed modification of Menna would alter its principal mode of operation and would have rendered it unsuitable for its intended purpose (Appeal Br. 8-9). With regards to argument (a), we first note that claim 1 is directed to "[a Jn anti-reflection coating" which has a specified "average total 4 Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 reflectance." In other words, the claimed coating is not limited to any particular structure, but must simply have a low average total reflectance as set forth in claim 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner's finding that the "effective reflectance coefficient" disclosed by Menna and the "reflectivity" disclosed by Xi are analogous to the "average total reflectance" recited in the appealed claims is erroneous (Appeal Br. 11-12). Appellants argue that the Specification states that "average total reflectance" is calculated by integration of the reflectivity function R(A.,8) over the appropriate incident angle and wavelength ranges (Appeal Br. 12, Spec. 23-24). Therefore, according to Appellants, because the "reflectivity" disclosed by Xi is not integrated "over a spectrum of wavelengths of 400-1100 nm and a range of incident angles of 0-90 degrees," the limitation that the average total reflectance when measured over a spectrum of wavelengths from 400-1100 nm and a range of angles of incidence from 0-90 degrees is not met. (Id. at 12). This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds that the claimed anti-reflection properties are result-effective variables and that it would have been obvious to optimize the coating to achieve the claimed average total reflectance (Final Act. 3, 13-14). Appellants assert that "[n]either Menna nor Xi discloses anything about an average total reflectance" and could not, therefore, suggest that any structural features were result-effective variables for this property (Appeal Br. 15-16). However, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 15-16), Xi teaches that the reflectivity of a texturized, porous silicon antireflective coating is below 0.3% for incident angles from 0° to 55° and that for normal incidence (i.e. 90°) the reflectivity is found to 5 Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 be less than 0.5% (Xi, FIG. 4, p. 179, col. 1, lines 14-17). Ivforeover, Xi also teaches that graded-index coatings yield omnidirectional broadband antireflection characteristics. Both Menna (p. 14, ,-i 3) and Xi (p. 176, col. 2) disclose adjustment of the texturization of the silicon layer to optimize the layer's antireflective properties. Thus, the present record supports the Examiner's findings with respect to result-effective variable. Moreover, because the materials used in Xi's composition are so similar to those disclosed in the Specification (compare Spec. 6 with Xi, p. 176, col. 1), the Examiner has made a prima facie showing that the combination of Menna and Xi would be expected to have the claimed reflectance properties. Therefore, Appellants must show that the prior art does not have this claimed property. E.g., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 ( CCP A 1977) ("Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product."). Appellants have not made such a showing. Arguments (b ), ( c ), and ( d) depend on the contrast that Xi draws between its multilayer coating and a single layer coating, like that disclosed by Menna (Xi, p. 176, col. 2). The Examiner has provided a reasoned explanation of why a person of skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references, namely that a person of skill in the art would have wanted antireflective properties over a variety of incident angles (Ans. 12). As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 13), because Xi teaches that single layer coating works at only a single wavelength and at normal incidence, a 6 Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify a single-layer coating like that of Menna to a multilayer coating, as Xi teaches the advantages of doing so. Thus, on the present record, Appellants' arguments that there was no reason to combine the teachings of Xi and Menna, or that doing so would change the principal of operation of Menna, or that Xi teaches away from its combination with Menna, are not persuasive. Finally, with respect to claim 3, Appellants assert that Xi does not disclose a multi-layer coating comprising at least one porous layer and one non-porous layer, as required by claim 3 (Appeal Br. 16). The Examiner finds that the non-porous AIN-substrate as disclosed in Xi corresponds with the claimed non-porous layer (see, e.g. Ans. 17). Appellants argue that a "substrate" cannot be considered to be a layer in a "coating" (Appeal Br. 16). However, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 12, 17), neither claim 1 nor 3 recites a substrate; both merely recite a coating. A "coating" which does not recite a substrate is broad enough to encompass a multilayer composition, like that disclosed in Xi, which includes a non-porous layer. Accordingly, based on the record on appeal, we conclude that Appellants have not demonstrated reversible error in the rejections. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menna in view of Xi. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menna in view of Xi and Dammel. 7 Appeal2014-008727 Application 12/736,278 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation