Ex Parte Glunz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2015

11572087 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte STEFAN GLUNZ,
ANSGAR METTE, RALF PREU,
and CHRISTIAN SCHETTER
__________

Appeal 2012-007886
Application 11/572,087
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 25–38, 51–55, and 57–59.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
According to the Appellants, the invention relates to a solar cell or a high-
performance light-emitting diode. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 52 and 59 are the
independent claims on appeal and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix

1 Claims 39–49 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration. See
Office Action dated September 28, 2010.
Appeal 2012-007886
Application 11/572,087

2

of the Appeal Brief dated October 14, 2011 (“Br.”). The limitations at issue are
italicized.
52. A semiconductor component, comprising:
at least one surface comprising:
a first portion containing no trenches;
a remaining portion containing at least one trench formed in the
at least one surface and extending below the at least one surface; and
at least one edge formed at least in part by the at least one
trench; and
an electric contact arranged on and surrounding the at least one
edge, wherein the electric contact comprises an essentially round
cross-section,
wherein the at least one surface provides for at least one of
electric and optical power input to and output from the semiconductor
component, and
wherein an area of the first portion is larger than an area of the
remaining portion.
59. A semiconductor component, comprising:
at least one surface having at least one gap formed in or
adjacent the at least one surface, such that a surface area of the at
least one surface does not include an area of the at least one gap
formed in or adjacent the at least one surface;
at least one longitudinally extending V-shaped or U-shaped
trench delimited by the at least one gap and extending below the at
least one surface, and the at least one trench being arranged to form at
least in part at least one edge; and
an electric contact arranged on and surrounding the at least one
edge, wherein the electric contact comprises an essentially round
cross-section,
wherein the at least one surface provides for at least one of
electric and optical power input to and output from the semiconductor
component, and
Appeal 2012-007886
Application 11/572,087

3

wherein the surface area of the at least one surface is greater
than the area of the at least one gap formed in or adjacent the at least
one surface.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 25–30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 51–55, and 57–59 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wettling;2,3,4
(2) claims 31, 32, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wettling in view of Jenson;5 and
(3) claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wettling in
view of Perry.6
B. DISCUSSION
1. Claim 52
Claim 52 recites a semiconductor component comprising, inter alia, “at least
one surface comprising: a first portion containing no trenches [and] a remaining
portion containing at least one trench formed in the at least one surface.” Br. 26
(emphasis added).

2 US 6,147,297, issued November 14, 2000.
3 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner included claim 56 in the statement of
the rejection. Examiner’s Answer dated January 19, 2012 (“Ans.”), at 4.
However, claim 56 was cancelled in an amendment dated December 28, 2010.
4 The Examiner omitted claims 57–59 from the statement of the rejection but
discussed claims 57–59 in the body of the rejection. See Final Office Action dated
March 18, 2011, at 5–6; Ans. 7–8. The Appellants appear to recognize that the
Examiner intended to include claims 57–59 in the statement of the rejection. See
Br. 9 (seeking review of the rejection of claims 57–59 under § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wettling). Therefore, the Examiner’s omission is harmless error
and the statement of the rejection has been corrected accordingly.
5 US 2003/0172969 A1, published September 18, 2003.
6 US 6,084,175, issued July 4, 2000.
Appeal
Applica

R
Wettlin
(i.e., the
portion
“one tre
“one tre
containi
52. An
T
recited
the claim
all of th
Appella
recited i
In
term rem
definitio
2012-0078
tion 11/57
eferring to
g discloses
top surfac
containing
nch portio
nch portio
ng at least
s. 5.
he Appell
‘remaining
ed “rema
e area of th
nts conten
n claim 52
response
aining . .
n support
86
2,087
Wettling
a semicon
e of the d
no trench
n being on
n being on
one trenc
Wettling
ants argue
portion’ i
ining port
e surface
d that the
correspon
, the Exam
. is, ‘some
s the Appe
Figure 1,
ductor co
evice show
es (i.e., th
e trench.”
e trench”
h formed i
Fig. 1 dep
a known P
that “the E
s unreason
ion . . . wo
exclusive
“remaining
ds to the
iner conte
thing that
llants’ arg
4
reproduced
mponent c
n in Wett
e horizonta
Ans. 4–5
correspond
n the at lea
icts a pers
ERL sola
xaminer’s
able.” Br
uld reason
of the first
portion c
central gri
nds that “a
remains o
ument. C
below, th
omprising
ling Figur
l border o
. The Exa
s to “a rem
st one sur
pective vi
r cell.
interpreta
. 12. Acco
ably be un
portion.”
ontaining
d structure
common
r is left.’”
laim 52 re
e Examin
at least on
e 1) compr
f the top s
miner find
aining po
face” recit

ew of
tion of on
rding to th
derstood
Br. 12. T
at least on
of Wettlin
ly held me
Ans. 11.
cites that a
er finds th
e surface
ising a fir
urface) an
s that the
rtion
ed in claim
e trench a
e Appella
to encomp
herefore,
e trench”
g. Br. 12
aning of th
This
t least one
at
st
d

s the
nts,
ass
the
.
e

Appeal 2012-007886
Application 11/572,087

5

surface comprises “a first portion containing no trenches [and] a remaining portion
containing at least one trench formed in the at least one surface.” Br. 26. There is
no dispute on this record that the horizontal border depicted in Wettling Figure 1
corresponds to the recited first portion of the at least one surface containing no
trenches. The portion of the surface that remains or is left (i.e., the remaining
portion of the at least one surface) is the central grid structure. The Examiner has
failed to show that the area of the first portion (i.e., the horizontal border depicted
in Wettling Fig. 1) is larger than the area of the remaining portion (i.e., the central
grid structure depicted in Wettling Fig. 1). Therefore, the § 102(b) rejection of
claims 25–30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 51–55, 57, and 58 is not sustained.
The Examiner does not rely on Jenson and/or Perry to cure the deficiency in
Wettling discussed above. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections of claims 31, 32, 34,
and 36 are not sustained.
2. Claim 59
Claim 59 recites a semiconductor component comprising, inter alia, “at least
one surface having at least one gap formed in or adjacent the at least one surface . .
. wherein the surface area of the at least one surface is greater than the area of the
at least one gap formed in or adjacent the at least one surface.” Br. 27–28. The
Examiner finds that the top surface of the device shown in Wettling Figure 1
corresponds to the “at least one surface” recited in claim 59 and one unit trench
shown in Wettling Figure 1 corresponds to the “at least one gap” recited in claim
59.7 Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that “the surface area of the at least one surface

7 More precisely, the gap referred to by the Examiner is an area formed in or
adjacent the at least one surface wherein the gap delimits a longitudinally
extending trench. See Appellants’ claim 59 (“at least one longitudinally extending
V-shaped or U-shaped trench delimited by the at least one gap”).
Appeal 2012-007886
Application 11/572,087

6

[i.e., the horizontal border depicted in Wettling Figure 1] is greater than the area of
the at least one gap formed in or adjacent the at least one surface.” Ans. 8.
The Appellants argue there is no evidence that the drawings in Wettling are
drawn to scale. Therefore, the Appellants contend that, “at best, the size
relationship between the identified ‘surface areas’ in WETTLING is ambiguous.”
Br. 18.
The mere fact that the drawings in Wettling may not have been drawn to
scale does not demonstrate reversible error. The Examiner finds that the outer
horizontal border of the device depicted in Wettling Figure 1 surrounds two sides
of an array of trenches and is intended to surround all four sides of the array. The
Examiner finds that the area of that horizontal border necessarily has an area larger
than one of the trenches in the array. Ans. 12. In view of the number of trenches
shown in Wettling Figure 1, the Examiner’s finding is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.8
The Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not shown that the at least
one surface of Wettling provides at least one of electrical and optical power input
to and output from the semiconductor component as recited in claim 59. Br. 19.
The Examiner, however, finds that Wettling Figure 1 shows a metal terminal “M”
and Wettling Figure 6e shows an electrical contact on the “at least one surface”
recited in claim 59. Ans. 12–13; see also Wettling, col. 1, ll. 52–54 (disclosing
that emitter layer comes into contact with metal contact strip M); Wettling, col. 5,
l. 66–col. 6, l. 8 (disclosing that the oxide layer depicted in Wettling Fig. 6c is
removed to expose high-doped regions and electroplated contact elements are

8 Wettling Figure 1 appears to show an array of nine longitudinally extending
trenches.
Appeal 2012-007886
Application 11/572,087

7

disposed at those sites according to Wettling Fig. 6e). The Appellants have failed
to show that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
For the reasons set forth above, the § 102(b) rejection of claim 59 is
sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25–30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 51–55, 57,
and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wettling is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wettling is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31, 32, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wettling in view of Jenson is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wettling in view of Perry is reversed.
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-IN-PART

cdc