Ex Parte Kukulka et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2007

10295060 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte JERRY R. KUKULKA
and DAVID R. LILLINGTON
______________

Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Decided: September 11, 2007
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicants appeal to the Board from the decision of the Primary
Examiner finally rejecting claims 1 through 19 in the Office Action mailed
April 12, 2006 (Office Action). 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002);
37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a) (2006).
We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner.

Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 13 illustrate Appellants’ invention of a solar cell
structure which has a bypass diode, and are representative of the claims on
appeal: 1
1. A solar cell structure comprising:
a solar cell having a front side and a back side and comprising an
active semiconductor structure, wherein the solar cell produces a voltage
when the front side is illuminated; and
a by-pass diode structure, wherein the by-pass diode structure
comprises
a by-pass diode positioned at the back side of the solar cell,
wherein the by-pass diode has a first diode terminal and a second diode
terminal,
a first electrical interconnection structure extending between the
back side of the solar cell and the first diode terminal, and
a second electrical interconnection structure extending between
the front side of the solar cell and the second diode terminal, wherein an
entire length of the second electrical interconnection structure extending
between the front side of the solar cell and the second diode terminal
contacts the solar cell.
7. A solar cell structure comprising:
a solar cell having a front side and a back side, wherein the solar cell
comprises
a substrate facing the back side of the solar cell, and
an active semiconductor structure having a first side contacting
the substrate in facing relation thereto and a second side facing the front side
of the solar cell, wherein the active semiconductor structure comprises two
semiconductor layers in facing contact with each other to form a
semiconductor junction producing a voltage between the two semiconductor
layers when illuminated; and

1We reproduce claim 1 as it stands of record because the copy in the Claims
Appendix of the Brie contains error as the Examiner points out. See Answer
at 3.
2
Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
a by-pass diode structure, wherein the by-pass diode structure
comprises
a by-pass diode positioned at the back side of the solar cell,
wherein the by-pass diode has a first diode terminal and a second diode
terminal,
a first electrical interconnection structure extending between the
back side of the solar cell and the first diode terminal, and
a second electrical interconnection, [sic] structure comprising a
metallic layer upon the solar cell and extending between the front side of the
solar cell and the second diode terminal.
9. The solar cell structure of claim 7, wherein the solar cell has a solar
cell edge, and wherein the second electrical interconnection structure
comprises
an insulation layer overlying at least a portion of the solar cell edge,
and
the metallic layer overlaying the insulation layer and extending from
the front side of the solar cell, along the solar cell edge, and to the second
diode terminal.
13. A solar cell structure comprising:
a solar cell having a front side, a back side, and an integral pathway
extending between the front side and the back side, and wherein the solar
cell comprises an active semiconductor structure, wherein the solar cell
produces a voltage when the front side is illuminated; and
a by-pass diode structure, wherein the by-pass diode structure
comprises
a by-pass diode positioned at the back side of the solar cell,
wherein the by-pass diode has a first diode terminal and a second diode
terminal,
a first electrical interconnection structure extending between the
back side of the solar cell and the first diode terminal, and
a second electrical interconnection structure extending between
the front side of the solar cell and the second diode terminal and in contact
with the integral pathway of the solar cell along a length of the second
3
Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
electrical interconnection structure extending between the front side of the
solar cell and the second diode terminal.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Feinberg US 4,636,578 Jan. 13, 1987
Cavicchi US 5,425,816 Jan. 20, 1995
Kukulka US 5,616,185 Apr. 1, 1997
Glenn2 US 6,531,653 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Müller3 US 6,452,086 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Br. 4):
claims 7, 11 through 13, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kukulka (Answer 4);
claims 7, 11 through 13, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Müller (id. 5);
claims 1 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cavicchi in
view of Kukulka (id. 6);
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kukulka in view of
Feinberg (id. 8);

2 The Examiner cites Glenn in stating the ground of rejection (Answer 9),
but cites Glenn US 6,313,396 B1 in the section (8) Evidence Relied Upon
(Answer 3). We consider Glen as applied by the Examiner and argued by
Appellants (see Office Action 9; Br. 38).
3 We have considered Müller with respect to the ground of rejection
advanced on appeal, which reference is applicable under § 102(e) (2002).
This is the reference applied in fact by the Examiner and argued by
Appellants (see, e.g., Office Action 3; Answer 5; Br. 11-12). We note that a
translation of Müller WO 00/21138 A1 prepared for the USPTO by Ralph
McElroy Translation Company (PTO 07-1615 January 2007) was not
entered into the official electronic records of the USPTO until the Office
Communication of July 26, 2007 in response to the Order by the Board
entered July 3, 2007.

4
Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Müller in view of
Feinberg (id. 9); and
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kukulka in view of
Glenn (id. 9).
We decide this appeal based on independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and
on claim 9, dependent on claim 7, as representative of the grounds of
rejection and Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
We interpret representative claims 1, 7, 9, and 13 by giving the terms
thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in
context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in
light of the written description in the Specification unless another meaning is
intended by Appellants as established therein, and without reading into the
claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1666-67 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The dispositive issue in this appeal is the interpretation of the “second
electrical interconnection structure” limitation in each of claims 1, 7, 9, and
13. We agree with Appellants that the plain language of each of these claim
limitations requires that the second electrical interconnection structure
5
Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
extends the entire length from the front of the solar cell to the second diode
terminal and further contacts the cell in claim 1; is a metallic layer upon the
solar cell in claim 7, with layer along the solar cell edge in claim 9; and is in
contact with the integral pathway extending between the front side and the
back side of the solar cell in claim 13 (Br., e.g., 2-4, 5-7, 8, and 22-23).
With respect to the grounds of rejection based on anticipation under
§§ 102(b) and 102(e), we find that neither Kukulka (Kukulka, e.g., col. 3,
l. 54 to col. 4, l. 56; col. 5, ll. 8-53; and Figs. 2, 3 and 5-7) nor Müller
(Müller, e.g., col. 2, l. 27 to col. 3, l. 21; and Figs. 1 and 3) describes to one
skilled in the art a second interconnection structure falling within claims 7
and 13, as we have interpreted this language above, as Appellants argue (Br.,
e.g., 5-6 and 12-13; cf. Answer 4, 5-6, and 10-11). We further observe that
the Examiner did not respond to Appellants’ arguments with respect to
Müller (Answer 11-12). Thus, Appellants’ arguments rebutted the prima
facie case, and the Examiner did not reestablish a prima facie case. See, e.g.,
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation we
reverse the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e).
Turning now to the grounds of rejection under § 103(a), we first
consider the rejection of all of the appealed claims over the combined
teachings of Cavicchi and Kukulka. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cavicchi’s solar
cell device (Cavicchi, e.g., col. 6, l. 33 to col. 7, l. 65; and Figs. 6 and 7) by
incorporating Kukulka’s bypass diode on the back side thereof and wiring
6
Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
the diode terminals as taught by Kukulka, motivated by the recognized value
of a bypass diode in preventing cell damage (Answer 7-8, citing Kukulka,
col. 2, ll. 58-67 and col. 3, ll. 39-53). Appellants contend the references
would not have been combined because there is no suggestion coupled with
a reasonable expectation of success therein to wire Cavicchi’s conductive via
to accommodate Kukulka’s bypass diode structure and wiring (Br., e.g., 20-
22, 23-24, 27, and 30-31). See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner did not respond to
these arguments which address the thrust of the rejection (Answer 12-13).
Thus, Appellants’ arguments rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness,
and the Examiner did not reestablish a prima facie case. See, e.g., In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness, we
reverse this ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We agree with Appellants’ arguments that the combined teachings of
Kukulka in view of Feinberg and of Glenn do not result in the limitations
with respect to the second electrical interconnection of claim 7 which are
included in dependent claim 9 (Br. 34 and 38-39; see Answer 13-14 and 14).
Accordingly, we reverse these two grounds of rejection of claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Finally, the Examiner has not stated and explained the cited ground of
rejection of claim 9 over the combined teachings of Müller and Feinberg in a
7
Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
manner specific to the teachings of these two references (Answer 9 and 11-
12).
Accordingly, the Examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness in the first instance of the claimed invention
encompassed by claim 9 over this combination of references, and thus, we
reverse this ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See, e.g., Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444; Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223
USPQ at 788.
The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

clj

GREGORY GARMONG
P.O. BOX 310
SMITH, NV 89430
8