Ex Parte Murphy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2012

12010919 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/010,919 01/31/2008 Brian Murphy 5636-1001 1239
93081 7590 09/11/2012
Dority & Manning, P.A. and Primestar Solar Inc.
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
BERNIER, LINDSEY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIAN MURPHY,
RUSSELL BLACK, KEN ZWEIBEL,
FRED SEYMOUR, MARK AUBLE,
and JACK LITTLE
____________

Appeal 2011-008956
Application 12/010,919
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 19-54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a CdTe-based photovoltaic module comprising a
conductive layer (i.e., cadmium stannate), a zinc tin oxide buffer layer, and a
cadmium sulfide layer having a thickness of about 0.1 µm or less on the
buffer layer, wherein the module has an active-area current density of about
Appeal 2011-008956
Application 12/010,919

2
23 mA/cm2 or more (claims 19 and 31) and a method of manufacturing such
a photovoltaic module (claims 25 and 41).
Representative claims 19 and 41 read as follows:
19. A CdTe-based photovoltaic module, comprising:

a conductive layer;

a zinc tin oxide buffer layer on the conductive layer; and

a cadmium sulfide layer having a thickness of about 0.1 µm or
less on the buffer layer,

wherein the CdTe photovoltaic module has an active-area
current density of about 23 mA/cm2 or more.

41. A method of manufacturing a CdTe photovoltaic module
comprising:

providing a low-iron glass superstrate;

sputtering a cadmium stannate conductive coating on the
superstrate;

sputtering a zinc tin oxide buffer layer on the conductive
coating; and

sputtering a cadmium sulfide having a thickness of about 0.1
µm or less on the buffer layer;

wherein the photovoltaic module has an active-area current
density of about 25 mA/cm2 or more.

Appeal 2011-008956
Application 12/010,919

3
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects:
claims 19-21, 23-28, 30, and 49-52 as unpatentable over Wu ‘246 (US
6,169,246 B1, patented Jan. 2, 2001) in view of Wu ‘048 (US 6,137,048,
patented Oct. 24, 2000);
claims 31-34, 36-40, and 53 as unpatentable over Wu ‘048 in view of
Rosenberg (US 5,877,874, patented Mar 2, 1999);
claims 35, 41-48, and 54 as unpatentable over Wu ‘048, Rosenberg,
and Wu ‘228 (US 2005/0009228 A1, pub. Jan. 13, 2005); and
claims 22 and 29 as unpatentable over Wu ‘246, Wu ‘048, and Wu
‘228.
Because the dependent claims have not been separately argued with
any reasonable specificity (see Br. 13-14), they will stand or fall with their
parent independent claims. It follows that our disposition of this appeal will
be based on independent claims 19, 25, 31, and 41.
We sustain each of the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to argument which are well expressed by
the Examiner in the Answer. The following comments are added for
emphasis.
Substantial evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that it would
have been obvious to provide the cadmium sulfide layer of Wu ‘246 or Wu
‘048 with a thickness of about 0.1 µm or less and to provide the resulting
photovoltaic module with current densities of about 23 mA/cm2 or more
including about 25 mA/cm2 or more. Specifically, this obviousness
conclusion is supported by the Examiner's findings that the prior art included
such thicknesses (see Wu ‘048 col. 3, ll. 3-30) and current densities (see Wu
Appeal 2011-008956
Application 12/010,919

4
‘246 Table 1 and Wu ‘228 Table 4) and that the prior art recognized these
parameters as result-effective variables whose optimization would have
yielded values within the claimed ranges (see, e.g., Ans. 5, para. bridging
20-21, 35, para. bridging 49-50).
According to Appellants, Wu ‘048 teaches that cadmium sulfide
thicknesses within the claimed range result in disadvantages, such as a
greater probability of pinhole defects, and therefore teach away from a
reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a photovoltaic module
having the claimed current densities (see, e.g., Br. 5-10). However, as
correctly explained by the Examiner, the disadvantages disclosed by Wu
‘048 are caused by using such cadmium sulfide thicknesses in combination
with the high surface roughness of SnO2 (see, e.g., Ans. 33; Wu 048 col. 3,
ll. 5-23). The photovoltaic modules of Wu ‘246 and Wu ‘048 use cadmium
stannate and zinc stannate, rather than SnO2, which have significantly
smoother surfaces and therefore would not be expected to create the
disadvantages caused by the high surface roughness of SnO2 (see, e.g., Wu
‘048 col. 12, ll. 13-48, col. 13, ll. 30-42).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
cam