Ex Parte COUSINS

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2016

13483941 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/483,941 05/30/2012 Peter John COUSINS 74254 7590 04/28/2016 Okamoto & Benedicto LLP P.O. Box 641330 San Jose, CA 95164-1330 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. 10031.004310 4643 EXAMINER MARTIN, BETHANY LAMBRIGHT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1755 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2016 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 PETER JOHN COUSINS Appeal2014-007460 Application 13/483 ,941 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 The real party in interest is the SunPower Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-007460 Application 13/483,941 Claim 21, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added): 21. A solar cell comprising: a first layer of doped polysilicon formed over a back surface of a substrate, the first layer of doped polysilicon forming a backside junction with the substrate; a second layer of doped polysilicon formed over a front surface of the substrate, the second layer of doped polysilicon making an electrical connection to the substrate; a first dielectric layer between the first layer of doped polysilicon and the back surface of the substrate; a second dielectric layer between the second layer of doped polysilicon and the front surface of the substrate; a first metal contact making an electrical connection to the first layer of doped polysilicon on a backside of the solar cell; a second metal contact making an electrical connection to the second layer of doped polysilicon on a front side of the solar cell, the first metal contact and the second metal contact being configured to allow an external electrical circuit to be powered by the solar cell; and a third dielectric layer formed over the first layer of doped polysilicon. (App. Br. 11, Claims App.) The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a): (a) Claims 21, 24, and 26 as unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2002/0069911 Al, published June 13, 2002) (hereinafter "Nakamura") in 2 Appeal2014-007460 Application 13/483,941 view of R.W. Miles et al., Photovoltaic solar cells: An overview of state-of- the-art cell development and environmental issues, 51 Progress in Crystal Growth and Characterization of Materials 1--42 (2005) (hereinafter "Miles"), (b) Claims 22 and 23 as unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Miles, and further in view ofKarakida et al. (US 2007/0256733 Al, published Nov. 8, 2007) (hereinafter "Karakida"); and (c) Claims 25, 27, and 28 as unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Miles, and further in view ofKruhler (US 2004/0043528 Al, published Mar. 4, 2004). Appellant's arguments urging reversal of the rejection of claims 22- 26 focus on limitations common to independent claim 21 (App. Br. 2-8; Reply Br. 2-7). In the absence of arguments specific to their patentability, dependent claims 22-26 stand or fall with claim 21. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Appellant separately argues the reversal of rejection (c) to dependent claims 27 and 28 (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 7). ANALYSIS The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports 3 Appeal2014-007460 Application 13/483,941 Appellant's position that the Examiner has not met the burden in this case for substantially the reasons set forth by Appellant in the Briefs. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of all the claims on appeal. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Independent Claim 21 "[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the scope of the claims in patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.); Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415F.3d1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" (Internal citation omitted)). Appellant points out his Specification explicitly contrasts an embodiment wherein a first layer of doped polysilicon and the first metal contact are formed on the front side of a solar cell substrate, that faces the sun during operation (compare to Nakamura's p-type amorphous silicon film 24 and electrodes 25/26 on the light incidence side (Nakamura i-f 49)) versus over a back swface of a substrate and on a backside of the solar cell as required by claim 21 (App. Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 2-3). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a back surface 4 Appeal2014-007460 Application 13/483,941 of a substrate" and "on a backside of the solar cell" consistent with his Specification requires that a first layer of doped polysilicon and the first metal contact be located on the substrate side that does not face the sun during normal operation (App. Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 2-3). On this record, the Examiner has not explained how Nakumura's device would have been capable of functioning as a solar cell with its backside facing the sun during normal operation. Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence on this record supports the Appellant's position that the Examiner has not established that Nakamura teaches or suggests that: (1) p-type amorphous silicon film 24, which is relied upon by the Examiner to be the first layer of doped polysilicon, is "formed over a back surface of a substrate," and (2) electrodes 25/26, which are relied upon by the Examiner to be the first metal contact, is "on a backside of the solar cell" (Ans. 3, 4, 11; App. Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 2-3). The Examiner's mere conclusion to the contrary is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner does not rely upon any other reference to cure these deficiencies of Nakamura. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the rejections of claims 21-28 which all rely upon the Examiner's flawed interpretation of the claim language. CONCLUSION The Examiner's Â§ 103 rejections of all the claims on appeal are reversed. REVERSED 5