Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

13083625 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/083,625 04/11/2011 JianLi
23483 7590 09/29/2016
WILMERHALE/BOSTON
60 STATE STREET
BOSTON, MA 02109
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.
TWINP062/TCA-087 8567
EXAMINER
TIJNGE, BRYAN R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
whipusptopairs@wilmerhale.com
teresa.maia@wilmerhale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIAN LI, VENKA TE SAN MURALI,
YONGHUA LIU, and DONG XU
Appeal2015---005227
Application 13/083,625
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MICHAEL G. l'viCl'viANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-26 and 28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appeal2015-005227
Application 13/083,625
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A method for forming a device, the method comprising:
providing a monocrystalline semiconductor lamina
having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first;
depositing a first undoped amorphous, nanocrystalline, or
microcrystalline semiconductor layer on and in contact with the
second surface of the lamina by PECVD while flowing a
precursor gas, the first undoped layer having a thickness less
than about 100 angstroms;
depositing a second doped amorphous, nanocrystalline,
or microcrystalline semiconductor layer on and in contact with
the first undoped layer by PECVD while flowing
the precursor gas, the second doped layer having a thickness
less than about 300 angstroms,
wherein, during the step of depositing the first undoped
layer and the step of depositing the second doped layer,
deposition temperature is less than about 95 degrees C and a
ratio of hydrogen to the precursor gas is at least 1: 1; and
wherein the lamina, the first undoped layer, and the second
doped layer are suitable for use in a photovoltaic cell.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Yamazaki
Henley
Varghese et al.
(hereafter "Varghese")
Sivaram et al.
(hereafter "Sivaram")
2007 /0173000 Al
2008/0179547 Al
2009/0038679 Al
2010/0009488 Al
2
July 26, 2007
July 31, 2008
Feb. 12,2009
Jan. 14,2010
Appeal2015-005227
Application 13/083,625
Pysch et al.
(hereafter "Pysch")
2010/025809 A2 Mar. 11, 2010
Roberto Galloni, Amorphous Silicon Solar Cells, WREC 400-404 (1996).
Koch et al., Low-temperature deposition of amorphous silicon solar cells, 68
Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 227-236 (2001).
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1---6, 9-12, and 15-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sivaram in view of Pysch and Koch.
2. Claims 7, 8, 18-20, 22, 24--26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sivaram in view of Pysch and Koch,
and Henley.
3. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sivaram in view of Pysch and Koch, as applied to claim 2
above and further in view of Galloni.
4. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sivaram in view of Pysch and Koch, and Henley, as applied to
claim 20 above, and further in view of Yamazaki.
5. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sivaram in view of Pysch and Koch, and Henley, as applied to claim 22
above, and further in view of Varghese.
3
Appeal2015-005227
Application 13/083,625
ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of all the claims on appeal, based
upon Appellants' presented arguments (Appellants discuss claims 7 and 18
on pages 9-10 of the Appeal Brief, but rely upon the same arguments
presented for claim 1, and merely repeat certain recitations in these claims,
without substantive argument). 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2014).
We note that Appellants list only 2 of the 5 rejections made by the
Examiner (on page 5 of the Appeal Brief), and only argue Rejections 1 and 2
in the Appeal Brief. We thus summarily affirm Rejections 3-5.
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and AFFIRM.
Rejection 1
We refer to the Examiner's statement of the rejection made on pages
4--8 of the Final Office Action (which we do not repeat herein).
On pages 5---6 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that one would
not apply the device layer thickness of Pysch to the cell of Sivaram because
Pysch's layer thickness is dependent upon cell architecture that is not
applicable to that of Sivaram, for the reasons stated therein.
However, we agree with the Examiner's stated reply on pages 3--4 of
the Answer. Therein, the Examiner convincingly explains how the idea that
there is a causal relationship between the presence of a tunnel passivation
layer and silicon thickness in Pysch is unsupported, and that in fact, Pysch
discloses prior art alternatives that achieve the same result (Pysch discloses
pre-treatment of the wafer or the amorphous layer itself can be used in place
of the passivation layer to provide a suitable surface, para. [0004]). Ans. 4.
4
Appeal2015-005227
Application 13/083,625
Appellants also argue that one would not have combined the teachings
of Sivaram and Koch because the two disclose solar cells of different cell
architecture (a hetero-intrinsic junction (HIT) cell versus and an amorphous
cell), and Koch develops process parameters for an amorphous solar cell to
optimize different properties that are not applicable to an HIT cell. Appeal
Br. 6-8. Appellants argue that one would not look at a reference describing
the parameters for making an amorphous solar cell when developing an HIT
cell. Appeal Br. 7. We agree with the Examiner's reply (Ans. 4--5) wherein
the Examiner states that Koch and Sivaram are in the same field of endeavor
of making silicon solar cells. Ans. 4. The Examiner also states that there
are disclosed benefits, independent of the specific type of solar cell, that are
taught by Koch and Sivaram. Id. We are not afforded a Reply Brief to
address this point made by the Examiner. We add that
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981) (citations omitted.) Also, the
mere fact that the prior art does not disclose the same purpose for the
claimed invention does not defeat the Examiner's rejections. Cf KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1.
5
Appeal2015-005227
Application 13/083,625
Rejection 2
Appellants rely upon the same arguments relied upon with regard to
Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 9-10. Hence, for the same reasons, we affirm
Rejection 2.
Rejections 3-5
Appellants present no arguments concerning the claims subject to
Rejections 3-5. Because the Appellants assert no error in those rejections,
we summarily affirm them.
DECISION
Rejections 1 and 2 are affirmed.
Rejections 3-5 are summarily affirmed.
Til'viE PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
6