Ex Parte King et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13619625 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

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.
13/619,625 09/14/2012 Richard R. King 5013899.033US1 8417
7590
MH2 Technology Law Group (w/Boeing)
TIMOTHY M. HSIEH
1951 Kidwell Drive
Suite 550
Tysons Corner, VA 22182
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ RAMOS, MAYLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1758
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
patentadmin @ boeing. com
docketing @ mh21aw .com
doreen @ mh21aw .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, and
NASSER H. KARAM
Appeal 2016-008264
Application 13/619,6251
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—5, 8—10, 13, 16, and 19-24 in the above-
identified application.3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
See Appeal Br. 3, Nov. 24, 2015. Appellants have filed related co-pending
appeals concerning Applications Nos. 13/616,933, 13/617,316, 13/617,566,
and 13/618,816. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal Br.; Reply Br., Aug. 30, 2016.
3 Final Office Action, June 30, 2015 [hereinafter Final Action]; Examiner’s
Answer, June 30, 2016 [hereinafter Answer],
Appeal 2016-008264
Application 13/619,625
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to “improved single-junction cells or
subcells in a multijunction photovoltaic (PV) cell, especially a solar cell,
having multiple layers to form a heterostructure.” Spec. 1. Independent
claim 1 and 22 are illustrative:
1. A photovoltaic cell comprising:
at least two group-IV subcells within a multijunction cell,
wherein at least one upper subcell is positioned closer to a
primary light source than at least one lower subcell, wherein the
at least one upper subcell has a higher direct or indirect energy
bandgap that the lower subcell, and wherein at least one of the
group-IV subcells further comprises a first layer comprising a
solar cell emitter layer formed from a group-IV layer, and a
second layer comprising tunnel junctions formed from one or
more group III—V semiconductor layers, the group-IV layer
forming a heterojunction with the one or more group III—V
semiconductor layers.
22. A method for energy generation comprising the step of:
providing a photovoltaic cell comprising at least two
group-IV subcells within a multijunction cell, wherein at least
one upper subcell is positioned closer to a primary light source
than at least one lower subcell, wherein the at least one upper
subcell has a higher direct or indirect energy bandgap that the
lower subcell, wherein at least one of the group-IV subcells
further comprises a first layer comprising a solar cell emitter
layer formed from a group-IV layer, and a second layer
comprising tunnel junctions formed from one or more group
III—V semiconductor layers, the group-IV layer forming a
heterojunction with the one or more group III—V semiconductor
layers, and wherein the group-IV layer is epitaxially grown on
the one or more group III-V semiconductor layers.
Appeal Br. 14, 17 (emphasis of key limitations added).
2
Appeal 2016-008264
Application 13/619,625
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1—5, 8—10, 13, 16, and 19—24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. See Final Action 3^4.
2. Claims 1—5, 8—10, 13, 16, and 19—24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
applicant regards as the invention. See Final Action 4—5.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—10, 13, 16, and 19-23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over King.4 See id. at 6—11.
4. Claims 3 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over King in view of Johnson.5 See id. at 11—12.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Written Description
The Examiner finds that “[tjhere is no support in applicants’ originally
filed disclosure for a p-n junction formed at a heterojunction between an
emitter and tunnel junctions,” as recited in claims 1 and 22. Final Action 3.
Appellants argue that claims 1 and 22 do not recite a heterojunction between
emitter and tunnel junctions, and point to support in Figures 1, 4, and 7, and
pages 18, 20, and 23 of the Specification, describing IV/III—V
heterojunctions that are not directly between an emitter and tunnel junctions.
See Appeal Br. 4—5.
4 King et al., US 2004/0200523 A1 (published Oct. 14, 2004).
5 Johnson et al., WO 2013/030531 Al (published Mar. 7, 2013).
3
Appeal 2016-008264
Application 13/619,625
We interpret claims according to their “broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Claims 1 and 22 recite “a first layer comprising a
solar cell emitter layer formed from a group-IV layer,” and “a second layer
comprising tunnel junctions formed from one or more group III—V
semiconductor layers.” Appeal Br. 14, 17. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the phrase “formed from a group-IV layer” modifies “a first
layer,” and the phrase “formed from one or more group III—V semiconductor
layers” modifies “a second layer.” This interpretation is consistent with the
Specification, including the figures and passages cited by Appellants. Under
this broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second layers may
contain other sublayers in addition to the emitter and tunnel junctions,
respectively; thus, claims 1 and 22 do not require a heterojunction directly
between an emitter and tunnel junctions, without any intervening sublayers.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 8—10,
13, 16, and 19—24 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Rejection 2: Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that in the limitation “the group-IV layer
forming a heterojunction with the one or more group III—V semiconductor
layers,” it is “unclear how a p-n junction is formed at the interface between
an emitter layer and tunnel junctions if as described in applicants’ instant
specification, there are intervening layers between them.” Final Action 4.
The Examiner’s rationale assumes that claims 1 and 22 require a
direct interface between an emitter and tunnel junctions. As discussed
above, there is no such requirement under the proper interpretation of claims
4
Appeal 2016-008264
Application 13/619,625
1 and 22 in light of the Specification. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 22 for indefiniteness.
Rejections 3, 4: Obviousness
Figure 1 of King is reproduced below:
A
Figure 1 depicts “a cross-section of a 3-junction photovoltaic cell.” King
129. The structure contains three cells 20, 40, and 60, of which the top cell
5
Appeal 2016-008264
Application 13/619,625
20 includes, from top to bottom, p-AlInP window 21, n-GalnP emitter 22, p-
GalnP base 24, and p-AlCalnP BSF (back-surface field) layer 25. According
to King, “a variety of different semiconductor materials may be used” for
emitter layer 22 and base layer 24,
including AllnP, AlAs, A1P, AlGalnP, AlGaAsP, AlGalnAs,
AlGalnPAs, GalnP, GalnAs, GalnPAs, AlGaAs, AlInAs,
AlInPAs, GaAsSb, AlAsSb, GaAlAsSb, AllnSb, GalnSb,
AlGalnSb, AIN, GaN, InN, GalnN, AlGalnN, GalnNAs,
AlGalnNAs, Ge, Si, SiGe, ZnSSe, CdSSe, and other materials
and still fall within the spirit of the present invention.
Id. 146.
The Examiner finds that King discloses “two group-IV subcells” 20
and 40, of which 20 is the “upper subcell” and 40 is the “lower subcell.”
Final Action 6 (citing King Fig. 1, || 44-46). The Examiner finds that the
upper subcell 20 comprises a layer with a solar emitter layer 22. See id. at 7.
The Examiner also finds that upper subcell 20 further includes “a second
layer comprising tunnel junctions (28 & 29) formed from one or more group
III—V semiconductor layers.” Id. (citing Fig. 1,146) (underlining omitted,
emphasis added). Finally, the Examiner finds that King discloses “the
group-IV layer (emitter layer, 22) forming a heterojunction with the . . .
group III—V semiconductor layer[,] i.e[.], base[] layer (24).” Id. (underlining
omitted, emphasis added) (citing King Fig. 1, || 46, 80, 84).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established that it would
have been obvious to select group IV for the first layer and group III—V for
the second layer. See Appeal Br. 9. We agree that the Examiner has not
made a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner has articulated a
reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have formed a IV/III—
V heterojunction between an emitter (e.g., layer 22 of King) and a base layer
6
Appeal 2016-008264
Application 13/619,625
(e.g., layer 24 of King). However, the Examiner has not articulated a
persuasive reason why a skilled artisan would have combined a group IV
emitter layer with group III—V tunnel junctions (e.g., layers 28 and 29 of
King). Figure 1 and paragraph 46 of King which the Examiner cites, see
Final Action 7, do not teach the composition of the tunnel junctions, nor do
they indicate why a skilled artisan would have used a Group III—V tunnel
junction material when choosing group IV for the emitter.
For the above reasons, the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 22, and claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of 1—5, 8—10, 13, 16,
and 19-24.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7