Ex Parte COUSINS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

13483941 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/483,941 05/30/2012 Peter John COUSINS
74254 7590 04/28/2016
Okamoto & Benedicto LLP
P.O. Box 641330
San Jose, CA 95164-1330
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.
10031.004310 4643
EXAMINER
MARTIN, BETHANY LAMBRIGHT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1755
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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 PETER JOHN COUSINS
Appeal2014-007460
Application 13/483 ,941
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is the SunPower Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007460
Application 13/483,941
Claim 21, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter (emphasis added):
21. A solar cell comprising:
a first layer of doped polysilicon formed over a back
surface of a substrate, the first layer of doped polysilicon
forming a backside junction with the substrate;
a second layer of doped polysilicon formed over a front
surface of the substrate, the second layer of doped polysilicon
making an electrical connection to the substrate;
a first dielectric layer between the first layer of doped
polysilicon and the back surface of the substrate;
a second dielectric layer between the second layer of
doped polysilicon and the front surface of the substrate;
a first metal contact making an electrical connection to the
first layer of doped polysilicon on a backside of the solar cell;
a second metal contact making an electrical connection to
the second layer of doped polysilicon on a front side of the solar
cell, the first metal contact and the second metal contact being
configured to allow an external electrical circuit to be powered
by the solar cell; and
a third dielectric layer formed over the first layer of doped
polysilicon.
(App. Br. 11, Claims App.)
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
(a) Claims 21, 24, and 26 as unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US
2002/0069911 Al, published June 13, 2002) (hereinafter "Nakamura") in
2
Appeal2014-007460
Application 13/483,941
view of R.W. Miles et al., Photovoltaic solar cells: An overview of state-of-
the-art cell development and environmental issues, 51 Progress in Crystal
Growth and Characterization of Materials 1--42 (2005) (hereinafter "Miles"),
(b) Claims 22 and 23 as unpatentable over Nakamura in view of
Miles, and further in view ofKarakida et al. (US 2007/0256733 Al,
published Nov. 8, 2007) (hereinafter "Karakida"); and
(c) Claims 25, 27, and 28 as unpatentable over Nakamura in view of
Miles, and further in view ofKruhler (US 2004/0043528 Al, published Mar.
4, 2004).
Appellant's arguments urging reversal of the rejection of claims 22-
26 focus on limitations common to independent claim 21 (App. Br. 2-8;
Reply Br. 2-7). In the absence of arguments specific to their patentability,
dependent claims 22-26 stand or fall with claim 21. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Appellant separately argues the reversal of rejection
(c) to dependent claims 27 and 28 (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 7).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
"[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." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with
approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports
3
Appeal2014-007460
Application 13/483,941
Appellant's position that the Examiner has not met the burden in this case
for substantially the reasons set forth by Appellant in the Briefs.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of all the claims on
appeal.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Independent Claim 21
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the scope of the claims in patent
applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim language, but
upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.);
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415F.3d1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[T]he
specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.'" (Internal citation omitted)).
Appellant points out his Specification explicitly contrasts an
embodiment wherein a first layer of doped polysilicon and the first metal
contact are formed on the front side of a solar cell substrate, that faces the
sun during operation (compare to Nakamura's p-type amorphous silicon film
24 and electrodes 25/26 on the light incidence side (Nakamura i-f 49)) versus
over a back swface of a substrate and on a backside of the solar cell as
required by claim 21 (App. Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 2-3). Accordingly, we agree
with Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a back surface
4
Appeal2014-007460
Application 13/483,941
of a substrate" and "on a backside of the solar cell" consistent with his
Specification requires that a first layer of doped polysilicon and the first
metal contact be located on the substrate side that does not face the sun
during normal operation (App. Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 2-3). On this record, the
Examiner has not explained how Nakumura's device would have been
capable of functioning as a solar cell with its backside facing the sun during
normal operation.
Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence on this record supports the
Appellant's position that the Examiner has not established that Nakamura
teaches or suggests that: (1) p-type amorphous silicon film 24, which is
relied upon by the Examiner to be the first layer of doped polysilicon, is
"formed over a back surface of a substrate," and (2) electrodes 25/26, which
are relied upon by the Examiner to be the first metal contact, is "on a
backside of the solar cell" (Ans. 3, 4, 11; App. Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 2-3). The
Examiner's mere conclusion to the contrary is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner does not rely upon any other reference to cure these
deficiencies of Nakamura. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the
rejections of claims 21-28 which all rely upon the Examiner's flawed
interpretation of the claim language.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's § 103 rejections of all the claims on appeal are
reversed.
REVERSED
5