Ex Parte Weber et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 14, 201612822055 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/822,055 06/23/2010 23377 7590 06/16/2016 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP CIRA CENTRE 12TH FLOOR 2929 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Klaus Johannes Weber 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. 104395.000010 5054 EXAMINER STARK, JARRETT J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2823 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2016 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KLAUS JOHANNES WEBER and ANDREW WILLIAM BLAKERS Appeal2014-006537 Application 12/822,055 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claim 17 of Application 12/822,055 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated and claims 1-11, 13-37, and 39-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 18, 2013). Appellants 1 seek reversal of the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-24, 45, and 46 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Transform Solar Pty Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-006537 Application 12/822,055 BACKGROUND The '055 Application describes methods for processing a semiconductor wafer to increase the usable planar surface area of the material contained in the wafer. Spec. i-f 2. The Specification also describes methods for decreasing the reflectivity of the products of the surface area- increasing method and methods for fabrication of solar cells from such products. Id. Claims 1 and 45 are representative of the '055 Application's claims and are reproduced below: 1. A device comprising an arrangement of elongated semiconductor strips, each strip having a width defining a face, each strip having a length greater than their [sic, its ][2J width, and a thickness less than the width, wherein the strips or mounted on a substrate or superstrate with an adhesive. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). 45. A solar cell module comprising: a plurality of very narrow individual bifacial solar cells composed of multi crystalline silicon or single crystal silicon, and a support substrate adapted to support each of the solar cells in an orientation allowing at least one of the front and rear faces of each of the solar cells to be exposed to solar radiation, the cells being mounted on the support substrate with an adhesive; wherein the first and second metal contacts of each of the solar cells are electrically interconnected. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). 2 If prosecution of the '055 Application continues, we urge Appellants to correct this error. 2 Appeal2014-006537 Application 12/822,055 REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kaplow. 3 Final Act. 3. 2. Claims 1-11, 13-24, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ricaud4 and Kondo. 5 Final Act. 4. 3. Claims 25-37, 39--44, and 47-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ricaud, Kondo, and Nath6 and/or Kay. 7 Final Act. 9. DISCUSSION Rejections 1 and 3. Appellants do not seek review of Rejections 1 and 3. Appeal Br. 3. We, therefore, summarily affirm these rejections. Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 13-24, 45, and 46 as unpatentable over the combination of Ricaud and Kondo. Final Act. 4. Appellants only present substantive argument for the reversal of this rejection with respect to independent claims 1 and 45. See Appeal Br. 3-9. Appellants do not expressly argue for the reversal of the rejection of any other claim subject to this ground of rejection. Id. Indeed, Appellants do not expressly request reversal of the rejection with regard to any other claim. 3 US 4,283,589, issued August 11, 1981. 4 US 5,254,179, issued October 19, 1993. 5 US 6,294,722 Bl, issued September 25, 2001. 6 US 4,733,944, issued September 27, 1988. 7 US 6,069,313, issued May 30, 2000. 3 Appeal2014-006537 Application 12/822,055 We assume that Appellants intended to seek reversal of the rejection of any claim which depends either directly or indirectly from a nonobvious independent claim. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."). With respect to claims 1 and 45, Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection should be reversed because the Examiner erred by finding that the combination of Ricaud and Kondo describes or suggests mounting the semiconductor strips on a substrate or superstrate with an adhesive. Appeal Br. 5-9. The Examiner found that Ricaud describes "a solar cell device comprising an arrangement of the elongated semiconductor strips ... wherein the strips are mounted on a substrate or superstrate (See figs. 4 and 5) with an adhesive [5]. Note: layer [5] adheres layer 7 to the substrate, thus functions [sic, functioning] as an adhesive." Final Act. 4. Ricaud describes a partially transparent photovoltaic device. Ricaud col. 1, 11. 9-18. Figure 5 of Ricaud is a cross-sectional view of such a photovoltaic device. Id. at col. 3, 11. 13-14. Figure 5 shows that the photovoltaic device is comprised of several layers of material deposited on a substrate 3. In particular, layer 5---a transparent conductive oxide film-is deposited on substrate 3, and layer 7-a semiconductor layer that provides photovoltaic conversion-is deposited upon layer 5. See id. at col. 3, 11. 56- 68. 4 Appeal2014-006537 Application 12/822,055 The Examiner argues: The applied prior art to Ricaurd[SJ discloses that the material 5 between the semiconductor layer 7 and the substrate 3 (see Ricaurd Fig. 5) is a conductive material. Therefore, conductive material 5 adheres semiconductor 7 to the substrate 3 in Ricaurd. Within the scope of Appellant's invention, the "adhesive" may be a conductive material (instant specification at paragraph 0075). In the prior art Ricaurd too the same material (conductive material) in the same environment (between the semiconductor layer and the substrate in a solar cell) would be expected to function in same manner, i.e. to bind layer 7 to layer 3. Answer 13-14. We reverse because the Examiner has adopted an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim term "adhesive." As the Examiner's argument quoted above demonstrates, the Examiner is of the view that in a semiconductor device, any layer that is located between two other layers serves to adhere the layers together and thus is an adhesive layer. This is unreasonably broad, especially in view of the '055 Application's Specification. Based upon our review of the Specification, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood an adhesive to be a substance that is included in a structure for the primary purpose of bonding two or more sub-structures together by surface attachment. On the record before us, therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-16, 45, and 46. Appellants, have not presented any distinct substantive argument for the reversal of the rejection of independent claim 17 as unpatentable over the 8 The Examiner consistently misspells "Ricaud." 5 Appeal2014-006537 Application 12/822,055 combination of Ricaud and Kondo. See Appeal Br. 3-10. The arguments presented do not relate to any limitation present in claim 17. We, therefore, summarily affirm the rejection of independent claim 17 and claims 18-24, which depend therefrom. CONCLUSION Because Appellants did not seek review of each ground of rejection in the Final Action, we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 17, 25-37, 39- 44, and 47-55. Furthermore, Appellants did not present substantive argument for reversal of the rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over the combination of Ricaud and Kondo. Thus we also summarily affirm the rejection of claims 17-24 as unpatentable this combination of prior art. We, however, reverse the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-16, 45, and 46 as unpatentable over the combination of Ricaud and Kondo for the reasons set forth above. 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-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation