Ex Parte Heng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201613601441 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/601,441 08/31/2012 Jiunn Benjamin Heng 127668 7590 05/11/2016 Solart::ity c/o Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP 2800 Fifth Street, Suite 110 Davis, CA 95618 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. P53-2NUS 3904 EXAMINER STAGG, MIRIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2016 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): syadmin@parklegal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIUNN BENJAMIN HENG, JIANMING FU, ZHENG XU, and ZHIGANG XIE 1 Appeal2014-007275 Application 13/601,441 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-21, and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Silevo, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2014-007275 Application 13/601,441 Appellants claim a method for fabricating a solar cell comprising simultaneously forming a front-side quantum-tunneling-barrier (QTB) layer on a front surface of a base layer of the solar cell and a back-side QTB layer at a backside of the base layer (independent claim 1 ). Appellants also claim a solar cell comprising front and back QTB layers (independent claim 12) or comprising a back QTB layer of Si Ox with x less than two (remaining independent claim 23). A copy of representative claims 1, 12, and 23, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A method for fabricating a back junction solar cell, comprising: obtaining a base layer for the solar cell; simultaneously forming a front-side quantum-tunneling-barrier (QTB) layer on a front surface of the base layer and a back-side QTB layer at a backside of the base layer facing away from incident light; forming an emitter layer underneath the back-side QTB layer, wherein a doping type of the emitter layer is opposite to a doping type of the base layer; forming a front surface field (FSF) layer above the front-side QTB layer; forming a front-side electrode above the FSF layer; and forming a back-side electrode underneath the emitter layer. 12. A backjunction solar cell, comprising: a base layer; a front quantum-tunneling-barrier (QTB) layer on a front surface of the base layer facing incident light; a back QTB layer situated on a back surface of the base layer facing away from the incident light; an emitter layer situated below the back QTB layer; a front surface field (FSF) layer situated above the front QTB layer; a front-side electrode situated above the FSF layer; and a back-side electrode situated below the emitter layer. 2 Appeal2014-007275 Application 13/601,441 23. A solar cell, comprising: a base layer; a quantum-tunneling-barrier (QTB) layer situated below the base layer facing away from incident light, wherein the QTB layer comprises silicon oxide (SiOx) with x less than two; an emitter layer situated below the QTB layer; a front surface field (FSF) layer situated above the base layer; a front-side electrode situated above the FSF layer; and a back-side electrode situated below the emitter layer. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable: claims 1-9 over Terakawa et al. (US 2006/0283499 Al, published Dec. 21, 2006) ("Terakawa") in view of Ohmi (US 5,563,092, issued Oct. 8, 1996) and Flodl et al. (US 5, 131,933, issued June 21, 1992) ("Flodl"); claim 10 over Terakawa, Ohmi, and FlOdl in combination with Kuznicki (US 5,935,345, issued Aug. 10, 1999); claims 12-20 over Terakawa and Ohmi; claim 21 over Terakawa, Ohmi, and Kuznicki; and claim 23 over Terakawa and Ohmi in view of Forbes et al. (US 2003/0042516 Al, published Mar. 6, 2003) ("Forbes"). Appellants do not present arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims under rejection (Br. 3-7). As a consequence, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims. We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis. In rejecting independent claim 23 over Terakawa, Ohmi, and Forbes, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide a QTB layer (i.e., a Si Ox layer) below the base wafer layer of Terakawa in order to 3 Appeal2014-007275 Application 13/601,441 suppress substrate biasing and epitaxial growth during a-Si deposition as taught by Ohmi (Final Action 8-9). 2 The Examiner also concludes that it would have been obvious to optimize the electronic affinity of the QTB layer in view of Forbes' teaching that the value of x in Si Ox is a result effective variable controlling electronic affinity in such a layer, thereby resulting in a QTB layer comprising SiOx with x less than two as claimed. Appellants dispute this latter conclusion by arguing that "Forbes does not disclose using SiOx with x less than 2 for a tunneling barrier layer at the backside of a solar cell" (Br. 5). In response, the Examiner correctly explains that Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it attacks Forbes individually rather than the combination of references applied in the rejection of claim 23 (Ans. 11- 12). Based on the record before us, Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's determination that Forbes teaches the value of xis a result effective variable whose optimization would have led to the claimed value of less than 2 for the silicon oxide of the QTB layer in the Terakawa/Ohmi combination. In rejecting independent claim 12 over Terakawa and Ohmi, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the base wafer layer of Terakawa with a QTB layer to suppress substrate biasing and epitaxial growth during a-Si deposition as taught by Ohmi (i.e., as discussed above) and to provide the QTB layer at both the front and back surfaces of Terakawa's base wafer layer because Terakawa teaches a-Si is deposited on both of these surfaces (Final Action 6). 2 Appellants do not challenge this obviousness conclusion with any reasonable specificity. 4 Appeal2014-007275 Application 13/601,441 Appellants argue "Ohmi fails to disclose that the tunneling oxide film can be deposited on both sides of a substrate" (Br. 4 ). The Examiner again correctly explains that Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking Ohmi individually where the rejection is based on Terakawa in combination with Ohmi (Ans. 9--10). Appellants do not specifically address, and therefore do not show error in, the Examiner's rationale in concluding that the combination of Terakawa and Ohmi would have led to using Ohmi' s QTB layer at both the front and back surfaces of Terakawa's base wafer layer. In rejecting method claim 1 over Terakawa, Ohmi, and Flodl, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Terakawa and Ohmi as discussed previously in order to obtain a QTB layer at both the front and back surfaces of Terakawa's base wafer layer and further concludes that it would have been obvious to form these QTB layers simultaneously in view of FlOdl' s teaching of simultaneously forming front 1 1 1 • 1 • • 1 1 /T""'I. 1 A.. ' • ,.... Al ' an a oacK s111con ox10e myers ~tCopy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation