Ex Parte Cousins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 25, 2014

12233819 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)

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. 12/233,819 09/19/2008 Peter Cousins 7923.P022 2820 84372 7590 06/25/2014 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP 1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER MERSHON, JAYNE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1758 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/25/2014 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 COUSINS and HSIN-CHIAO LUAN ____________ Appeal 2012-007646 Application 12/233,819 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-13 and 15-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claims are directed to a method for fabricating a solar cell using a pin-hole-free masking layer. Claim 11 is the only independent claim on appeal. This claim is illustrative of the subject matter and recites: Appeal 2012-007647 Application 12/233,819 2 11. A method for fabricating a solar cell, comprising: providing a substrate having a dielectric stack disposed thereon; forming a distinct layer on the dielectric stack, the distinct layer comprising a pin-hole-free masking layer; and subsequently, patterning, without the use of a mask, the pin-hole-free masking layer to form a patterned pin-hole free masking layer, wherein the dielectric stack protects the substrate during the patterning; etching, using the patterned pin-hole-free masking layer as a mask, the dielectric stack to form a patterned dielectric stack and to expose a portion of the substrate; removing the patterned pin-hole-free masking layer to expose the patterned dielectric stack; and forming a plurality of metal contacts in the patterned dielectric stack. REJECTIONS 1) Claims 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agostinelli et al. (US 2009/0301557 A1, published Dec. 10, 2009) (Agostinelli) in view of Hollingsworth (US 5,759,745, issued June 2, 1998) and Mulligan et al. (US 2004/0200520 A1, published Oct. 14, 2004) (Mulligan). 2) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agostinelli et al. in view of Hollingsworth and Mulligan, and further in view of Ransley et al. (US 2009/0194830 A1, published Aug. 6, 2009) (Ransley). 3) Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agostinelli et al. in view of Mulligan and Hollingsworth, and further in view of Szlufcik et al. (US 7,196,018 Appeal 2012-007647 Application 12/233,819 3 B2, issued Mar. 27, 2007) (Szlufcik) as evidenced by Bonner et al. (US 2008/0314443 A1, published Dec. 25, 2008) (Bonner). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Inasmuch as Claim 11 is the only independent claim on appeal and the only claim specifically argued by Appellants, our disposition of the appeal will focus on this claim, and the remaining claims will stand or fall with it. We sustain the above rejections for the reasons given by the Examiner and add the following comments for emphasis. Regarding patterning the masking layer without the use of a mask, the Examiner finds that Hollingsworth discloses such patterning by teaching a “method of using a scanning ion beam to hydrogenate the [amorphous silicon layer] and form a surface portion of silicon dioxide.” (Ans. 6). Appellants contest this finding by arguing that the silicon dioxide layer on the hydrogenated amorphous silicon layer, as disclosed in Hollingsworth, is an “in situ” mask “used in the patterning of the a-Si:H layer” and not the “direct patterning” found in Appellants’ claimed process. (App. Br. 9). As correctly explained by the Examiner, “the exposure and developing step [of the silicon oxide/amorphous silicon mask] is not referred to as an in situ mask, but rather defines the structure of the mask.” (Ans. 12). Additionally, the Examiner determines that Appellants do not claim direct patterning, but rather only “patterning, without the use of a mask, the pin-hole-free masking layer to form a patterned pin-hole-free masking layer.” (Id.). Appeal 2012-007647 Application 12/233,819 4 It is well established that “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s determination that direct patterning is not claimed or otherwise clearly explain why the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language is unreasonable. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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