Ex Parte RIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2017

13631457 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2017)

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.
13/631,457 09/28/2012 Seung RIM 10031.010200 2561
74254 7590 11/08/2017
Okamoto & Benedicto LLP
P.O. Box 641330
San Jose, CA 95164-1330
EXAMINER
CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2017 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 SEUNG RIM and DAVID D. SMITH
____________________

Appeal 2017-002114
Application 13/631,457
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN,
and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 7, 8, 13, 16, and 20–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant is the Applicant, SunPower Corporation. SunPower Corporation
is also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002114
Application 13/631,457

2
Claim 7 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
7. A solar cell having a front side facing the sun
during normal operation and a back side facing away from the
sun, the solar cell comprising:

a silicon substrate having a front side and a back side;

a continuous polysilicon layer formed on the back side of
the silicon substrate;

a first doped polysilicon region and a second doped
polysilicon region of opposite polarity and formed in the
continuous polysilicon layer;

a resistive region disposed between the first and second
doped polysilicon regions in the continuous polysilicon layer,
the resistive region comprising oxygen;

a first metal grid disposed over the second doped
polysilicon region, the first metal grid electrically connected to
at least the second doped polysilicon region;

a dielectric layer between the silicon substrate and the
continuous polysilicon layer; and

a second metal grid electrically connected to the first
doped polysilicon region, wherein the first and second metal
grids are formed on the back side of the solar cell.

Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8,
13, 16, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by De Ceuster
(US 2009/0308438 A1, published December 17, 2009). App. Br. 3; Non-
Final Act. 2.

Appeal 2017-002114
Application 13/631,457

3
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 7, 8,
13, 16, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by
Appellant in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following for
emphasis.
Independent claim 7 is directed to a solar cell comprising a resistive
region disposed between first and second doped polysilicon regions in the
continuous polysilicon layer.2
The Examiner finds De Ceuster’s Figure 8A discloses a solar cell
comprising first and second doped polysilicon regions 301, 302. Non-Final
Act. 3; Ans. 7; De Ceuster ¶¶ 41, 45–46. The Examiner finds Figures 14–18
of De Ceuster disclose an embodiment where the doped regions of opposite
polarity are in a continuous polysilicon layer, as claimed. Ans. 8–9.
Figures 14–18 of De Ceuster disclose an alternate embodiment where
the backside polysilicon layer of a solar cell comprising N-type and P-type
doped regions that are separated by a trench (as illustrated in Figure 8A)
further comprises trench interruptions that allow the doped regions of
opposite polarity to physically touch or abut. De Ceuster Figure 19, ¶¶ 61–
62. The structure of this embodiment allows for the solar cell to have
relatively low reverse breakdown voltage when shaded. Id. ¶¶ 63, 67.
According to the Examiner, the doped regions of De Ceuster are in a
continuous polysilicon layer at these trench interruptions. Ans. 8–9.

2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 7 because the issues for both
independent claims are similar. See generally Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2017-002114
Application 13/631,457

4
Therefore, the Examiner concluded De Ceuster’s solar cell anticipates
the subject matter of independent claim 7.
Appellant argues independent claim 7 requires a first doped
polysilicon region and a second doped polysilicon region of opposite
polarity formed in a continuous polysilicon layer. App. Br. 3, 6. According
to Appellant, Figure 8A of De Ceuster fails to teach the claimed structure
because it does not teach the doped regions in a continuous polysilicon layer.
Id. at 4–5. With respect to De Ceuster’s embodiment illustrated in Figures
14–18, Appellant does not dispute that this embodiment discloses the doped
regions in a continuous polysilicon layer. See generally Reply Brief.
Instead, Appellant argues that this embodiment of De Ceuster still lacks the
claimed resistive region disposed between the first and second doped
polysilicon regions in the continuous polysilicon layer. Id. at 3.
We agree with Appellant. As asserted by Appellant, the subject
matter of independent claim 7 requires an affirmative structure in the form
of a resistive region disposed between first and second doped polysilicon
regions in the continuous polysilicon layer. Id. While the Examiner asserts
that De Ceuster’s embodiment shown in Figures 14–18 discloses the doped
regions of the solar cell in a continuous silicon layer, the Examiner does not
direct us to any portion of De Ceuster that describes a resistive region
disposed as claimed.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above.

Appeal 2017-002114
Application 13/631,457

5

ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 7, 8, 13, 16, and 20–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.

REVERSED