Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12647201 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/647,201 12/24/2009
21186 7590 05/05/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Renhua Zhang
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.
3245.015US 1 1513
EXAMINER
STAGG, MIRIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RENHUA ZHANG, BILL PHAN, JOHN GORMAN,
ALAIN PAUL BLOSSE, and MARTIN KAES
Appeal2014-008953
Application 12/647,201
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
The claims are directed to a solar cell. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A solar cell comprising:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Silicor Materials Inc.
Appeal Brief filed February 27, 2014 ("App. Br."), 2.
2 Final Office Action mailed May 31, 2013 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2014-008953
Application 12/647,201
a substrate comprised of silicon of a first conductivity
type;
a layer of silicon of a second conductivity type disposed
on said substrate;
a passivation layer disposed on said layer of silicon,
wherein said passivation layer is silicon oxynitride; and
an anti-reflection (AR) layer disposed on said passivation
layer, wherein said AR layer is comprised of silicon
carbon nitride (SiCN).
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-8 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Park3 in view of Limmanee. 4
2. Claims 9-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park in
view of Limmanee, and further in view of A wad. 5
Examiner's Answer mailed May 13, 2014, 4--5.
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 2-13, which depend directly from claim 1. Therefore, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with independent claim 1.
3 Park et al., US 2007/0175508 Al, published August 2, 2007 (hereinafter
"Park").
4 Limmanee et al., Preparation of Hydrogenated Amorphous Silicon Carbon
Nitride Films by Hot-Wire Chemical Vapor Deposition Using
Hexamethyldisilazane for Silicon Solar Cell Applications, 46 Japanese
Journal of Applied Physics 56-59 (2007) (hereinafter "Limmanee").
5 Awad et al., WO 2008/104059 Al, published September 4, 2008
(hereinafter "A wad").
2
Appeal2014-008953
Application 12/647,201
Appellants argue that "there is no teaching or suggestion in Limmanee
or Park that suggests combining SiCxNy with a silicon passivation layer."
App. Br. 7. Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Park teaches a solar
cell that includes a substrate formed of a first conductivity type ( 11 ), a layer
of silicon of a second conductivity type (12) formed on the substrate (11 ), a
passivation layer of silicon oxynitride (14) formed on the second
conductivity type layer (12), and an antireflective layer of silicon nitride (15)
formed on the passivation layer (14). Park i-f 20; Fig. 1. Although Park is
silent as to an antireflective layer of silicon carbon nitride, Limmanee
teaches both silicon nitride (SiNx) films and silicon carbon nitride (SiCxNy)
films are useful for the same purpose-as antireflective layers for solar cells.
Limmanee 56 (Introduction). The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to substitute the silicon nitride antireflective layer of Park with a
silicon carbon nitride antireflective layer disclosed in Limmanee because the
obviousness of interchanging art recognized alternatives is well established.
Final Act. 3--4. Appellants have not shown reversible error in this
determination. See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301(CCPA1982) (Where two
known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express
suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a
substitution obvious.).
Relying on page 3, lines 15-18 of the Specification, Appellants argue
that "the specific combination of a silicon oxynitride passivation layer and a
silicon carbon nitride AR layer as claimed provides unexpected benefits."
App. Br. 7. This argument is not persuasive because the disclosure in the
Specification does not identify the results as unexpected. "[A ]ny superior
3
Appeal2014-008953
Application 12/647,201
property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-
obviousness." Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2007); see also In re Greenfield, 571F.2d1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978)
(arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence). Moreover, as the
Examiner correctly finds, the alleged evidence of unexpected results is also
deficient because: (1) it is not commensurate in scope with the appealed
claims with respect to a number of parameters, and (2) it does not include a
comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art (i.e., Park)
(Ans. 7).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-13.
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
4