Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2016

13423231 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/423,231 03/18/2012 Xiaobo Zhang
101142 7590 11/14/2016
Walters & Wasylyna, LLC
8193 Avery Road Suite 101
Cleveland, OH 44147
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.
11-1241 4030
EXAMINER
BAUMANN, LIESL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2016 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):
victor@wwiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOBO ZHANG, VINCENT A. LIM,
HOON H. LEE, JOHN P. SERRA, UMING T. JENG,
STEVEN M. BUNYAN, WLIE J. HOSKIN,
KENT E. BARBOUR, and DIMITRI D. KRUT
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1---6, 8, 22, and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 In our Opinion below, we refer to the Final Action mailed July 1, 2014
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed November 24, 2014 ("App. Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed February 10, 2015 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief
filed April 6, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a solar cell assembly. Claim 1, reproduced
below with the disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A solar cell assembly comprising:
a semiconductor wafer having an upper portion and comprising
a solar cell portion and a wing portion, wherein said wing portion is
electrically isolated from said solar cell portion; and
an electrical contact material positioned on said upper portion
of said solar cell portion,
wherein said upper portion of said wing portion is
substantially free of said electrical contact material.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
Takehara
Varghese et al.
("Varghese")
Comfeld et al.
("Comfeld")
REFERENCES
us 5;318;638
US 2010/0012175 Al
US 2010/0233839 Al
REJECTIONS
June 7; 1994
Jan. 21, 2010
Sept. 16, 2010
The claims stand rejected as unpatentable as follows: claims 1, 3---6,
and 83 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Comfeld; claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Comfeld as evidenced by Varghese;
3 The Final Action states that claim 21 is rejected as anticipated by Comfeld.
Final Act. 2. However, the Appeal Brief indicates that claim 21 was
previously cancelled. App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
and claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Comfeld in
view of Takehara. Final Act. 2--4.
OPINION
Rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8 over Cornfeld
Appellants argue the patentability of sole independent claim 1 over
Comfeld, and do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 3---6 and 8. App. Br. 6. Accordingly, claims 3---6 and 8
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Comfeld anticipates claim 1. The Examiner
finds that Comfeld teaches solar cells on semiconductor wafers,
corresponding to the claimed solar cell assembly, and that the semiconductor
wafer inherently has an upper surface, as claimed. Final Act. 2. Figure 12A
of Comfeld is reproduced below:
Surrogate Substrate 125
Figure 12A of Comfeld, reproduced above, is a cross-sectional view of the
solar cell of the invention after the process step in which first and second
annular channels 510 and 511 define a peripheral boundary between the cell,
3
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
a surrounding mesa 516 and a periphery mesa 51 7 at the edge of the wafer.
Comfeld i-f 124.
The Examiner identifies the mesa structure that constitutes the solar
cell ( 518) as corresponding to the claimed "solar cell portion," and the
periphery mesa ( 517) as corresponding to the "wing portion" claimed. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner interprets grid lines ( 501) as corresponding to the
claimed "electrical contact material." Id.
Appellants contend that Figure 12A of Comfeld's solar cells includes
a "mesa structure" (518) which constitutes the solar cell portion. App. Br. 6
(citing Comfeld i-f 124). According to Appellants, isolation channels (510
and 511) define a peripheral boundary between the solar cell portion ( 518), a
surrounding mesa portion (516), and a periphery mesa (517). Id. at 6-7.
With respect to Comfeld, we agree with Appellants that the combined
surrounding mesa portion ( 516) and periphery mesa ( 51 7) correspond to the
claimed wing portion. See App. Br. 6-7.
We tum to determining whether the wing portion of Comfeld is
substantially free of electrical contact material.
Appellants argue that the Examiner misconstrues the claim term
"electrical contact material" as "grid lines." Id. at 8. Appellants contend
that the Specification distinguishes between "electrical contact material" and
"grid lines." Id. at 9 (citing Spec. i-f 29).
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable scope
consistent with the specification as would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Specification
identifies electrical contact material 22 as being applied to the upper surface
4
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
of the semiconductor wafer, and states that it may form an electrically
conductive grid 24. Figure lB of the application is reproduced below:
Figure lB, reproduced above, is a schematic top plan view of a
semiconductor water during manufacture, shown with an electrical contact
material (22) applied thereto. Spec. i-f 11.
We are persuaded that "electrical contact material" is more extensive
than merely being limited to grid lines. As Appellants' Figure lB illustrates,
electrical contact material, as taught in the Specification, can cover parts of
the semiconductor wafer in addition to forming grid lines.
However, with respect to the issue of whether the Examiner properly
identifies grid lines in Comfeld as the claimed "electrical contact material,"
Appellants' argument for construction of the term is irrelevant to application
of the term to Comfeld because Appellants themselves identify the claimed
"electrical contact material" as element ( 501) multiple times. App. Br. 7
("Fig. 19C of Comfeld ... ha[ s] an upper portion that includes electrical
contact material (layer 501 )"; "the mesa shown in Fig. 20B ... also includes
electrical contact material (layer 501 )"; Reply Br. 2 ("Because Figs. 19C and
20B . . . clearly show the surrounding mesa 516 (mislabeled as 517 in Fig.
5
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
19C) including electrical contact material 501 "). Comfeld refers to layer
501 as "grid lines." Comfeld i-f 135. Appellants identify no other structure
in Comfeld as the claimed "electrical contact material." See generally App.
Br.
Appellants point to Figures 19C and 20B of Comfeld as supporting
that the reference teaches electrical contact material on the surrounding mesa
( 516) (which Appellants and the Examiner agree is mislabeled in Figure 19C
as 517). App. Br. 7. Appellants argue earlier in the Appeal Brief that
element ( 501) corresponds to electrical contact material (see, e.g., id. at 7),
and element (501) is part of surrounding mesa (516). Figure 19C of
Comfeld is reproduced below:
cell J
/
Figure 19C, reproduced above, is a cross-sectional view of a portion of two
solar cells, cells 2 and 3. Comfeld i-f 141. Cells 2 and 3 have been separated
from the wafer by a cut through channel ( 511 ), therefore, periphery mesa
(517) is not part of the assembly shown in the figure. Id. i-f 139.
The fact that Figure 19C of Comfeld discloses electrical contact
material ( 501) on at least a portion of the wing portion ( 516 and 517) does
not eliminate the disclosure of Figure 12A, which teaches the wing portion
substantially free of electrical contact material. See Comfeld Figs. 12A and
6
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
19C. Therefore, Comfeld discloses each and every element of claim 1. Jn
re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (To serve as an anticipatory
reference, "the reference must disclose each and every element of the
claimed invention, whether it does so explicitly or inherently").
Based on the facts and arguments presented, Appellants have not
persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding claim 1
anticipated by Comfeld.
Rejection of claim 2 over Cornfeld as evidenced by Varghese
Appellants' argument for patentability of claim 2 is the same
argument as for patentability of claim 1 over Comfeld. Appellants fail to
persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding claim 2 to be
anticipated by Comfeld at evidenced by Varghese.
Rejection of claims 22 and 23 over Cornfeld in view of Takehara
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected as obvious over Comfeld in view of
Takehara. Final Act. 4. Appellants' argument for patentability of claims 22
and 23 is that Comfeld' s wing portions include electrical contact material, as
argued for patentability of claim 1, and the combined references, therefore,
fail to teach an upper portion of a wing portion that is substantially free of
electrical contact material. App. Br. 11. For the reasons provided above,
Appellants fail to persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in
concluding that claims 22 and 23 are obvious over Comfeld in view of
Takehara.
7
Appeal2015-005153
Application 13/423,231
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8, 22,
and 23 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2015).
AFFIRMED
8