Ex Parte VargheseDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613372068 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 9002X 7616 EXAMINER REAMES, MATTHEW L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2893 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/372,068 02/13/2012 128940 7590 12/27/2016 Sol Aero Technologies Corp. 10420 Research Road SE Albuquerque, NM 87123 Tansen Varghese 12/27/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TANSEN VARGHESE Appeal 2015-006530 Application 13/372,068 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-006530 Application 13/372,068 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant’s invention is directed to methods of mounting solar cells on a flexible substrate (Spec. 12). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of manufacturing a solar cell, comprising: depositing a sequence of layers of semiconductor material forming at least one solar cell on a growth substrate; temporarily bonding a flexible film to a support substrate; permanently bonding the sequence of layers of semiconductor material to the flexible film so that the flexible film is interposed between the growth and support substrates; thinning the growth substrate while bonded to the support substrate to expose the sequence of layers of semiconductor material; removing the entire support substrate from the flexible film subsequent to thinning the growth substrate; and attaching the flexible film and the sequence of layers of semiconductor material to a solar panel with the flexible film and the sequence of layers of semiconductor material being flexible enough to conform to a substantially non-planar surface. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass (US 2006/0144435 Al, published July 6, 2006) in view of Henley et al. (US 2006/0205180 Al, published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Henley”), and Jain (US 2006/0063351 Al, published Mar. 23, 2006). 2 Appeal 2015-006530 Application 13/372,068 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Henley, Jain,1 and Kurimoto et al. (US 2004/0188861 Al, published Sept. 30, 2004) (“Kurimoto”). 3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Henley, Jain, and Comfeld et al. (US 2007/0277873 Al, published Dec. 6, 2007) (“Comfeld”)2. 4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Henley, Jain, and Wanlass et al. (US 2006/0162768 Al, published July 27, 2006) (“Wanlass ’768”).3 5. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Henley, Jain, Wanlass ’768, and Comfeld.4 1 The Examiner’s omission of Jain and Henley from the statement of rejection is harmless error (Final Act. 5). Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and therefore incorporates ah the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, it is readily understood that the rejection of claim 3 includes the teachings of Jain and Henley. Indeed, the Examiner clarified that the reference to “Wanlass modified” in the rejection of claim means Wanlass in view of Jain and Henley (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3). 2 Appellants understand that the Examiner’s reference to “Wanlass modified” means the combination of Wanlass in view of Jain and Henley (App. Br. 9-10). 3 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection refers to “Wanlass as applied to claim 1” requires that Jain and Henley are part of the rejection (Final Act. 6). The Examiner’s omission of Jain and Henley from the statement of rejection is harmless error. 4 The Examiner’s reference in the statement of rejection to “Wanlass as applied to claim 6” requires that Jain and Henley are part of the rejection. The Examiner’s omission of Jain and Henley from the statement of rejection is considered to be harmless error. 3 Appeal 2015-006530 Application 13/372,068 6. Claims 13—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Henley, Jain,5 and Kurimoto. 7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Henley, Jain, and Comfeld.6 8. Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Jain, Henley, and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) cited in US 2010/0122724). 9. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanlass in view of Jain, Henley, and Kurimoto.7 With regard to rejection (1), Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1 only (Br. 6—8). Appellant’s arguments regarding rejections (2) to (9) are directed to none of the secondary references curing the alleged deficiencies with regard to rejection over Wanlass in view of Jain and 5 The Examiner inadvertently omitted Jain and Henley from the statement of rejection (Adv. Act. continuation sheet). This omission is harmless error as Appellant understands the Examiner’s position that Jain and Henley are part of the rejection (Br. 12). 6 The Examiner’s reference to “Wandlass [sic] modified” refers to Wanlass as modified by Jain and Henley in the rejection of independent claim 15. The Examiner’s omission is considered to be harmless error. 7 The Examiner’s statement of rejection on page 15 of the Final Action incorrectly states that claim 20 is rejected over “Wanlass as applied to claim 18” in view of Kuromoto. It is clear that the reference to claim 20 is a harmless typographical error because the Examiner’s findings are directed to claim 19 in the body of the rejection. Moreover, the Examiner’s reference to Wanlass as applied to claim 18 refers to Wanlass in view of Jain and Henley. The Examiner’s omission of Jain and Henley from the statement of rejection is considered to be harmless error. 4 Appeal 2015-006530 Application 13/372,068 Henley (Br. 8—18). Therefore, the claims under rejections (2) to (9) will stand or fall with our analysis regarding claim 1. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Wanlass teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for bonding a flexible film to a support substrate, removing the entire support substrate from the flexible film after thinning the growth substrate, and attaching the structure to a solar panel (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that Henley teaches applying a support to a film (Figs. 11H and B) and processing the structure (Figs. 16 and 17) and then removing the support from the flexible film (Fig. 18) (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that “Jain teaches bonding a support substrate to a flexible film (300, 312) bonding the structure to a device and removing the support” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to apply a stiffener to the back of a flexible film of Wanlass to improve structural support during processing as well as ensuring a good bond preventing undesired bending as suggested by Henley in 152. Id. The Examiner makes additional findings and conclusions regarding attaching the flexible film and the sequence of layers of semiconductor material to a solar panel and the sequence of layers being flexible enough to conform to a substantially non-planar surface (Final Act. 3). Appellant does not contest these additional findings and conclusions. Appellant argues that Henley’s flexible material is a growth substrate, as opposed to a support substrate recited in the claims (Br. 7). Appellant contends that Jain’s temporary substrate 300 corresponds to a growth substrate, not a support substrate as recited in the claims (Br. 8). Appellant 5 Appeal 2015-006530 Application 13/372,068 contends that neither Henley nor Jain suggests bonding a flexible film to a support substrate as recited in the present claims (Br. 8). Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they fail to address specifically the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner’s rejection is based upon Wanlass teaching a flexible film (82) on which is grown a series of layers (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that Wanlass fails to teach a support substrate temporarily bonded to the flexible film. Id. The Examiner relies upon Jain and Henley to teach that it is known to use a stiffening member to support a flexible substrate during processing (Final Act. 3). In other words, the Examiner rejection is based upon Wanlass teaching the flexible substrate and Jain and Henley teaching that it is desirable to provide a stiffening layer to control flexing of the layer during processing (Ans. 2— 3). Therefore, Appellant’s characterization of Jain’s or Henley’s stiffening substrate as a growth substrate does not address the Examiner’s position that when that teaching is combined with Wanlass, the added stiffening layer is a support substrate for handle 82 and the semiconductor layers 90, 36, 80 formed there atop. Indeed, Wanlass teaches that the layers 36, 80, and 90 are formed on the parent substrate 20 first and then transferred to the flexible handle 82 (Figs. 3a to 3d; H 47—50). Appellant has not shown reversible error with the Examiner’s rejection. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections (1) to (9). DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. 6 Appeal 2015-006530 Application 13/372,068 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). ORDER AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation