Ex Parte Gabor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2013

12179972 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/179,972 07/25/2008 Andrew Gabor 9119
7590 10/04/2013
Max Era Inc.
c/o Dacheng Law Office, LLP
2 Wall Street, Floor 21
New York, NY 10005
EXAMINER
KHAN, TAHSEEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2013 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 ANDREW GABOR
________________

Appeal 2012-008412
Application 12/179,972
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and GEORGE C. BEST,
Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-008412
Application 12/179,972

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 15-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a string ribbon wafer. Claim 15 is illustrative:
15. A string ribbon wafer comprising:
a plurality of grains comprising a plurality of large grains and a
plurality of small grains,
a plurality of carriers having a diffusion length,
the plurality of large grains having smallest outer dimensions that are
greater than about two times the diffusion length of the carriers,
the majority of the plurality of grains being large grains,
the wafer being substantially free of string.

The References
Kholodenko US 2007/0158654 A1 Jul. 12, 2007

Giso Hahn et al., 14% Efficient Large Area Screen Printed String Ribbon
Solar Cells, 17th Eur. Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conf. 1719-22, Munich,
Germany (Oct. 22-26, 2001) (hereinafter Hahn).

Vijay Yelundur, Understanding and Implementation of Hydrogen
Passivation of Defects in String Ribbon Silicon for High-Efficiency
Manufacturable, Silicon Solar Cells, Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of
Technology (2003) (hereinafter Yelundur).

The Rejection
Claims 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yelundur in
view of Hahn and Kholodenko.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
Appeal 2012-008412
Application 12/179,972

3
The Appellant states that the dependent claims stand or fall with sole
independent claim 15 (Br. 3). We therefore limit our discussion to that
claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
The Appellant argues that Yelundur would not have suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, a string ribbon wafer having a majority of large
grains or a combination of large and small grains (Br. 5; Reply Br. 3).
Yelundur discloses that “[t]he strings on the edges of String Ribbon Si
serve as a nucleation site for grains with high angle grain boundaries that
propagate about 2 mm into the wafer” (p. 51). Those grains with high angle
grain boundaries appear to be the high density, small grains with a high
density of grain boundaries which, the Appellant states, often form near the
edges of string ribbon crystals (Spec. 8-12). Because Yelundur’s string
ribbon wafer is 8 cm x 15 cm and has large (millimeter or centimeter size)
grains in its central region (p. 51), the grains which have high angle grain
boundaries and propagate only about 2 mm into the wafer appear to be a
minority of the grains.
The Appellant argues that Kholodenko does not describe a string
ribbon wafer and, therefore, is nonanalogous art (Br. 5; Reply Br. 3-4).
The test of whether a reference is from an analogous art is first,
whether it is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, and second, if it is
not, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor was involved. See In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA
1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
different field of endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering the inventor’s problem. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed.
Appeal 2012-008412
Application 12/179,972

4
Cir. 1992). Kholodenko is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which
the inventor was involved with respect to which Kholodenko is applied
(Ans. 6-7), which is determining proper large grain outer dimensions relative
to the diffusion length of the carriers (Spec. 8:11-20). Kholodenko pertains
generally to “a substrate, wafer, or ribbon that can be used to form a solar
cell or other similar semiconductor type devices thereon” (¶ 0033) and
discloses a “typical grain dimension at least two times the minority carrier
diffusion length.” Id. Moreover, Yelundur discloses effective diffusion
lengths (Leff) of 212 and 544 µm (0.212 and 0.544 mm) (p. 104, Table 11).
The disclosed large (millimeter or centimeter) size grains (p. 51) can have
smallest outer dimensions that are greater than about two times those
diffusion lengths.
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yelundur in
view of Hahn and Kholodenko is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED

cam