Ex Parte Fujii et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

14229570 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
F9125-31100 5096
EXAMINER
BOURKE, ALLISON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1757
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/229,570 03/28/2014
53897 7590 12/19/2016
DUANE MORRIS LLP - San Diego
750 B Street
Suite 2900
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4681
Shuichi FUJII
12/19/2016 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 SHUICHI FUJII, YOSUKE INOMATA,
TOMONARI SAKAMOTO, KOICHIRO NIIRA, YUKO FUKAWA,
HIROSHI MORITA, KOJINISHI, TATSUYA YASHIKI,
MITSUO YAMASHITA, and KENJI FUKUI
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARKNAGUMO, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants (hereinafter the “Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 21,
30-39, and 41—45.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Appellants state that the real party in interest is “Kyocera Corporation”
(Appeal Brief filed January 8, 2016, hereinafter “Br.,” 3).
2 Br. 5; Final Office Action mailed June 8, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2—
10; Examiner’s Answer mailed June 13, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—A.
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a solar cell module
(Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 11). Figure 10(a) is reproduced from
the current application as follows:
FIG. IQ (a)
5a
Figure 10(a) above illustrates a solar cell module in accordance with the
invention, wherein the module includes multiple bus bar electrodes
(represented generally as “5a”) connecting front surface finger electrodes
(represented generally as “5b”) on a semiconductor substrate 1 (Spec. 22,
11. 8-10; 11 169, 172).3
Representative claim 21 is reproduced from pages 20—21 of the
Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), with key disputed limitations highlighted
in italicized text, as follows:
21. A solar cell module comprising;
a plurality of solar cell elements having a plate shape,
and arranged between a translucent panel and a back surface
protective member such that the solar cell elements are
electrically connected to each other by innerleads, wherein
3 The Appellants identify the two outermost bus bar electrodes shown in
Figure 10(a) as the “conductors” recited in the last “wherein” clause of
claim 21 (Br. 7—8).
2
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
unoccupied spaces between the translucent panel and the back
surface protective member are filled with a filler member;
wherein the plurality of solar cell elements each
comprises:
a semiconductor substrate;
three front surface bus bar electrodes disposed on
a front light-receiving surface of the semiconductor
substrate; and
a plurality offront surface finger electrodes
disposed on the front light-receiving surface of the
semiconductor substrate and electrically connected to the
three front surface bus bar electrodes;
wherein the three front surface bus bar electrodes
comprise;
a first front surface bus bar electrode disposed
proximate to a center line of the semiconductor substrate;
a second front surface bus bar electrode disposed
on the semiconductor substrate substantially parallel with
the first front surface bus bar electrode so as form a first
semiconductor substrate area between the first and
second front surface bus bar electrodes; and
a third front surface bus bar electrode disposed on
the semiconductor substrate substantially parallel with
the first front surface bus bar electrode so as form a
second semiconductor substrate area between the first
and third front surface bus bar electrodes, and
wherein the first front surface bus bar electrode is
disposed between the first and second semiconductor
substrate areas, the second front surface bus bar electrode
is disposed between the first semiconductor substrate
area and a third semiconductor substrate area, and the
third front surface bus bar electrode is disposed between
the second semiconductor substrate area and a fourth
semiconductor substrate area;
wherein the plurality offront surface finger electrodes are
electrically connected to each other via conductors located on
front light-receiving surfaces of the third and fourth
semiconductor substrate areas in addition to being electrically
3
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
connected to each other via the first, second and third front
surface bus bar electrodes.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 21, 30—37, 39, and 43—454 as unpatentable over
Takahashi et al. (referred to as “Hiroaki” or “Hiroraki”
by the Appellants and the Examiner, respectively)5 in
view of Hanoka et al. (hereinafter “Hanoka ’553”)6;
II. Claim 38 as unpatentable over Hiroaki in view of Hanoka
’553 and further in view of Fujii et al. (hereinafter
“Fujii”)7; and
III. Claims 41 and 42 as unpatentable over Hiroaki in view of
Hanoka ’553 and further in view of Hanoka (hereinafter
“Hanoka ’382”).8
(Final Act. 2—10; Ans. 2-4.)
4 In the statement of the rejection for Rejection I (Final Act. 2), the
Examiner indicated that claims 40-42 were also rejected. But, as the
Appellants correctly point out (Br. 14, n. 1), claim 40 was previously
canceled by amendment on May 19, 2015, and claims 41 and 42 were
rejected separately in Rejection III below. Therefore, it appears that the
Examiner inadvertently included these claims in Rejection I.
5 JP 2000-340812 A, published December 8, 2000 (machine translation of
record). To avoid confusion, we also refer to this reference as “Hiroaki.”
6 US 5,476,553, issued December 19, 1995.
7 US 2003/0178057 Al, published September 25, 2003.
8 US 5,733,382, issued March 31, 1998.
4
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Appellants rely on a common set of arguments for claims 21, 30—
37, 39, and 43—45 (Br. 14—17). Therefore, these claims stand or fall together
with a representative claim, which we designate as claim 21. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that Hiroaki describes a solar cell module
including every limitation recited in claim 21 except that the prior art
module includes only three bus bar electrodes rather than a total of five
(specified in claim 21 as “three front surface bus bar electrodes” and two
“conductors”) (Final Act. 2—3). The Examiner found, however, that Hanoka
’553 teaches that the width and number of bus bars are selected in order to
maximize solar radiation exposed to the cells while, at the same time,
configured to permit recovery of electrical current from the cells {id. at 3).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that “one of ordinary skill
in the art. . . would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount
of bus bars in the apparatus of [Hiroaki] to obtain [a] desired balance
between the light entering the cell and the power recovered” because “it has
been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the
prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine
skill in the art” (id.) (internal citations omitted).
The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings concerning the
scope and content of Hiroaki’s disclosure (Br. 14—17). Rather, the
Appellants point out that claim 21 recites “an increased number of
conductors (a total of 5) for electrically connecting a plurality of finger
electrodes on the front surface of a solar cell element” and contend that “the
5
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
cited prior art neither discloses nor suggests such increased electrical
connectivity on the front surface of solar cell elements but, rather, actually
teaches away from it. . . (cl. at 14—15). Specifically, the Appellants argue
that Hanoka ’553 teaches away from increasing the number of front surface
bus bar electrodes above two (as shown in Hanoka ’553’s Figure 2) because
it advises a person having ordinary skill in the art to maximize the area of
the front surface exposed to solar radiation—not decrease it by increasing
the number of front surface bus bar electrodes or conductors (id. at 16)
(citing Hanoka ’553 col. 1,11. 47—52). Thus, according to the Appellants,
the Examiner failed to articulate a sufficient reason with some rational
underpinning to support the obviousness conclusion (id. at 17) (citing In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with approval in KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
We discern no merit in the Appellants’ argument for the reasons well-
stated by the Examiner (Ans. 2—3). As found by the Examiner (id. ), Hanoka
’553 teaches that electrical contacts (electrodes) on the front and rear sides
of solar cells permit recovery of electrical current from the cells when they
are exposed to solar radiation (col. 1,11. 36-42; Fig. 2). These electrical
contacts are disclosed as being in the form of a grid comprising an array of
narrow fingers and at least one elongate bus bar electrode that intersects the
fingers (col. 1,11. 46—50). In Figure 2, Hanoka ’553 shows the front surface
of a cell provided with multiple fingers 30 intersecting two bus bar
electrodes (col. 6,11. 8—20). Hanoka ’553 further teaches that “[t]he width
and number of the fingers and busses are selected so that the area of the front
surface exposed to solar radiation is maximized” (col. 1,11. 50—52).
6
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
Thus, Hanoka ’553 does not teach away as the Appellants allege in
this appeal. Rather, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
drawn a reasonable inference from Hanoka’553’s disclosure as a whole that,
for a fixed width and length for each of the electrodes on a cell with a given
total exposed surface area, a tradeoff exists between an increase in the
number of electrodes to improve recovery of electrical current from solar
energy at the expense of reducing total surface area available for exposure to
solar energy. Given that understanding, we are in complete agreement with
the Examiner’s position (Final Act. 3) that a person having ordinary skill in
the art would have arrived at a workable or even optimum range for the
number of electrodes (including five bus bar electrodes) by routine
experimentation. See, e.g., In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).9
Moreover, consistent with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3), Hanoka
’553 teaches that both the number and the width of the busses can be
adjusted to maximize the area of the front surface exposed to solar radiation
(col. 1,11. 50—52). Thus, given that the width of the bus bar electrodes may
be varied, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that the number of bus bar electrodes could be increased without reducing
the total surface area that would be exposed to solar radiation. The
Appellants offer no evidence to the contrary.
For these reasons, we uphold Rejection I.
Rejection II
9 The Appellants do not direct us to any evidence demonstrating that the use
of five bus bar electrodes provides an unexpected criticality over two
electrodes as shown in the prior art. Id.
7
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
For claim 38, the Appellants rely on the same argument offered in
support of claim 21, adding that “Fujii does not cure the deficiencies of
Hiroaki and Hanoka [’]553” (Br. 17). Because we found the Appellants’
argument in support of claim 21 to be unpersuasive of any reversible error in
Rejection I, we also uphold Rejection II for the same reasons discussed
above.
Rejection III
Claim 41 recites (Br. 23):
41. The solar cell module according to claim 21, wherein:
the plurality of front surface finger electrodes are in
direct contact with the filler member without having solder
there between; and
the three front surface bus bar electrodes are electrically
connected to the innerleads via solder.
For claims 41 and 42, which depends from claim 41, the Appellants
again rely on the same argument offered in support of claim 21 (Br. 18). In
addition, the Appellants contend that “the Examiner’s vague reference to
‘non[-]coated solder fingers’ does not explain how Hanoka [’]382 allegedly
teaches that ‘the plurality of front surface finger electrodes are in direct
contact with the filler member without having solder there between,’ as
recited by claim 41” (id.).
As discussed previously, we found the Appellants’ argument in
support of claim 21 to be unpersuasive. Regarding the Appellants’
additional argument, the machine-generated translation of Hiroaki appears to
indicate that the electrodes are covered with solder (| 13). Nevertheless, we
find no prejudicial error in the Examiner’s determination that electrodes not
coated with solder were disclosed in the prior art as suitable design
alternatives (e.g., Hanoka ’382, col. 4,11. 49—55) and, therefore, a person
8
Appeal 2016-007567
Application 14/229,570
having ordinary skill in the art would have expected such alternative designs
to provide successful results when implemented in Hiroaki’s cells. Indeed,
such a conclusion is consistent with the Appellants’ own disclosure, which
indicates that solderless electrodes are merely an alternative design (Spec.
1198,110).
For these reasons, we also uphold Rejection III.
SUMMARY
Rejections I—III are affirmed. Therefore, the Examiner’s final
decision to reject claims 21, 30-39, and 41—45 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
9