Ex Parte King et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201813069274 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/069,274 03/22/2011 124834 7590 05/24/2018 MH2 Technology Law Group (w/Boeing) TIMOTHY M. HSIEH 1951 Kidwell Drive Suite 550 Tysons Corner, VA 22182 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Richard R. KING 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. 10-0431-US-NP/0192.0155 9825 EXAMINER TRIVISONNO, ANGELO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2018 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): doreen@mh2law.com docketing@rnh2law.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD R. KING, CHRISTOPHER M. FETZER, DIMITRI D. KRUT, and NASSER H. KARAM Appeal2016-005259 Application 13/069,274 1 Technology Center 1700 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 20-27, 30-36, and 39--46. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-005259 Application 13/069,274 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellants describe the invention as relating to a device structure that increases photo generation current density. Spec. i-f 9. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations, is the only independent claim on appeal and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A lattice mismatched metamorphic semiconductor device having at least one subcell, the at least one subcell comprising: a base layer; an emitter layer in electrical connectivity with the base layer, wherein the base layer and emitter layer form a p-n junction in a photovoltaic cell or other optoelectronic device; a low bandgap absorber region disposed in either or both of the base layer and emitter layer, wherein the low bandgap absorber region has a higher photogeneration and a lower bandgap than surrounding semiconductor layers; wherein the low bandgap absorber region forms tensile and compressive regions having alternating smaller and larger lattice constants than that of an average lattice constant of the lattice mismatched metamorphic semiconductor device; and wherein the low bandgap absorber region does not form a quantum well. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated March 5, 2015 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed October 5, 2015 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated February 17, 2016 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed April 15, 2016 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal 2016-005259 Application 13/069,274 Rohr et al. ("Rohr") Fetzer et al. ("Fetzer") US 2003/0089392 Al May 15, 2003 US 2007/0137695 Al June 21, 2007 A. G. Norman et al., Structural studies of natural superlattices in group III- V alloy epitaxial layers, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 8, S9 (1993) ("Norman") Wolfang Guter et al., Current-matched triple-junction solar cell reaching 41.1% conversion efficiency under concentrated sunlight, APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 94, 223504 (2009) ("Guter") REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection 1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 20-23, 26, 27, 31-34, 36, 40, and 42--44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rohr in view of Fetzer. Final Act. 3. Rejection 2. Claims 24, 25, 35, 39, and 41under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rohr in view of Fetzer and further in view of Guter. Id. at 11. Rejection 3. Claims 30 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rohr in view of Fetzer and further in view of Norman. Id. at 13. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After considering the evidence 3 Appeal 2016-005259 Application 13/069,274 presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants do not present substantively distinct arguments for any dependent claims and generally argue all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 3-9. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Rohr discloses a lattice mismatched metamorphic semiconductor device with a subcell having a base layer, an emitter layer, and a low bandgap absorber region (an "LBAR"). Final Act. 4 (citing Rohr). The Examiner finds no explicit disclosure in Rohr that a quantum well is not formed. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds, however, that Fetzer teaches a semiconductor device having LBAR regions that do not form quantum wells. Id. (citing Fetzer). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Rohr so that Rohr's LBAR regions are a thicker size that does not form quantum wells "because such a modification allows for improved current density output while at the same time reducing the amount of material necessary by avoiding a large number of quantum wells .... " Id. at 5---6. Appellants contend that the purpose of Rohr is to convert light to electrical charge while extending the absorption of the photovoltaic device to longer wavelengths and also maintaining low dark current. Appeal Br. 4-- 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed modification is improper because it would render Rohr unsuitable for its intended purpose. Id. at 5---6. 4 Appeal 2016-005259 Application 13/069,274 The preponderance of the evidence does not support Appellants' argument. Rather, the Examiner finds that the proposed modified device would still absorb longer wavelengths while maintaining low dark currents "as taught by Fetzer." Ans. 3; see also Fetzer i-fi-128-29 (indicating that multiple quantum wells ("MQWs") with Fetzer's small number of lower bandgap regions allows absorption of long-wavelength photos), i138 ("these low band gap regions absorb light below the bandgap of the higher bandgap base 308 material"), i1 40 (indicating that Fetzer's design avoids dark current). Appellants do not persuasively dispute the Examiner's findings regarding Fetzer. Appellants also argue that the proposed modification of Rohr is improper because the modification would destroy Rohr's principle of operation. Appeal Br. 6-7. Again, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against Appellants' argument. While we agree with Appellants that the quantum wells of Rohr are important to extend absorption to longer wavelengths, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that a person of skill in the art would have understood that Fetzer's LBAR regions would achieve the same purpose. Ans. 3-5; see also Fetzer 38--40. Appellants do not dispute that Fehr still achieves this absorption while maintaining low dark currents and strain-balancing. Id. at 5. As the Examiner states, the only difference between Rohr and the Examiner's proposed modification is the thickening of Rohr' s quantum wells such that they no longer exhibit quantum confinement. Id. Appellants fail to persuasively explain why this thickening amounts to a changed principle of operation. In the Reply Brief, Appellants expand on their argument that quantum confinement (a result of a Rohr' s thin quantum wells) is critical to the structure of Rohr. Reply Br. 2. Appellants cite additional references to 5 Appeal 2016-005259 Application 13/069,274 support their position. Id. at 3--4. Appellants again do not dispute, however, that Fetzer teaches that its thicker LBAR regions will achieve the same purpose as the quantum wells of Rohr and the cited references. None of Appellants' citations weigh against or discredit the Examiner's findings regarding Fetzer, and the citations also do not contradict the Examiner's stated rationale (Final Act. 5---6) as to why it would have been advantageous to use, in Rohr's structure, the wider LBAR regions taught by Fetzer. Appellants also argue that modification of Rohr would require substantial reconstruction. App. Br. 5. The difference between the quantum wells of Rohr and the LBAR regions of Fetzer is that Fetzer's regions are "sufficiently thick so as not to be quantum well in nature." Fetzer i-f 29. As the Examiner finds, Rohr indicates that its LBAR regions can have various thicknesses. Ans. 6. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence does not suggest that further thickening of the LBAR region, as taught by Fetzer, would require a substantial reconstruction. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence to the contrary. Because Appellants' arguments do not identify Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner's rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 20-27, 30-36, and 39--46. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation