Geoffrey Kinsey et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 13, 20212020003146 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 11/301,529 12/13/2005 Geoffrey S. Kinsey PD-05-0306 9472 48058 7590 04/13/2021 GATES & COOPER LLP - Boeing HOWARD HUGHES CENTER 6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 EXAMINER DAM, DUSTIN Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/13/2021 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): docketing-us@gates-cooper.com gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte GEOFFREY S. KINSEY, RICHARD R. KING, HOJUN YOON, and DENTON W. McALISTER _______________ Appeal 2020-003146 Application 11/301,529 Technology Center 1700 _______________ Before GEORGE C. BEST, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–27 of Application 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Dec. 13, 2005 (“Spec.”) of Application 11/301,529 (“the ’529 Application”); the Final Office Action dated Mar. 28, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Sept. 26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 21, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 23, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003146 Application 11/301,529 2 11/301,529. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. BACKGROUND The subject matter of the ’529 Application relates to devices and methods for making multijunction solar cells with a transparent conductive interlayer. Spec. 1, ll. 6–8. Claim 1 is representative of the ’529 Application’s claims and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 1. A solar cell assembly, comprising: a first solar cell comprised of a first p-type doped semiconductor layer and a first n-type doped semiconductor layer forming a first p-n junction, a second solar cell comprised of a second p-type doped semiconductor layer and a second n-type doped semiconductor layer forming a second p-n junction, and a first Transparent Conductive Coating (TCC) layer, deposited on or above the first n-type doped semiconductor layer of the first solar cell and bonded to the second p-type doped semiconductor layer of the second solar cell, or deposited on or above the first p-type doped semiconductor layer of the first solar cell and bonded to the second n-type doped semiconductor layer of the second solar cell, for electrically connecting the first solar cell to the second solar cell, wherein: the first TCC layer is a Transparent Conductive Oxide (TCO) that is amorphous to allow for a mismatch in lattice constants between the first and second solar cells; the first TCC layer creates an interference effect that alters light travelling between the first solar cell and the second solar cell and increases efficiency of light absorbed in at least one of the first solar cell and the second solar cell; and Appeal 2020-003146 Application 11/301,529 3 the interference effect of the first TCC layer increases transmission of the light to the first solar cell and increases reflectance of the light back into the second solar cell. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Narayanan et al. (“Narayanan”) US 2004/0045598 A1 Mar. 11, 2004 Abe et al. (“Abe”) US 2005/0239660 A1 Oct. 27, 2005 Skryabin et al. (“Skryabin”) US 2009/0000655 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 REJECTION3 The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Skryabin in view of Narayanan and Abe. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. DISCUSSION Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7–12. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). The Examiner finds that Skryabin discloses a rear device (first solar cell) and a front device (second solar cell), each comprising a working 3 Because this application was filed before the March 16, 2013, effective date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute Appeal 2020-003146 Application 11/301,529 4 electrode 6, a counter electrode 7, and an electrolyte 8. Ans. 4–5 (citing Skryabin ¶¶ 24, 25, 53). An annotated version of Figure 1 of Skryabin, edited for clarity, is reproduced below: Figure 1 of Skryabin is a diagrammatic cross-sectional view (not to scale) of a 4-terminal NDSC (Nano Dye Solar Cell) device comprising the first example of Skryabin’s invention. Skryabin ¶¶ 1, 47. The front device is formed between first outer substrate 1 and first face of the center substrate 2. Id. ¶¶ 21–22. The rear device is formed between second outer substrate 3 and second face of center substrate 2. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23. The Examiner finds that the first TCC layer of claim 1 is represented by TEC layer 4 on the bottom of center substrate 2, which bonds and physically adheres adjacent layers. Ans. 11. The Examiner finds that the first TCC layer creates an interference effect that meets the requirements of claim 1. Id. at 11–12. The Examiner finds that Skryabin exemplifies a solar cell assembly using dye-sensitized solar cells, but Narayanan teaches a first solar cell comprising a first p-type doped semiconductor layer and a first n-type doped semiconductor layer forming a p-n junction, and a second solar cell Appeal 2020-003146 Application 11/301,529 5 comprising a second p-type doped semiconductor and a second n-type doped semiconductor layer forming a p-n junction on top of and bonded to the first solar cell’s doped semiconductor layers. Id. at 8. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select Narayanan’s first and second solar cells for solar cells in Skryabin’s front and rear devices because “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use . . . support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination.” Id. at 8–9. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification would result in Skryabin’s center substrate separating Narayanan’s solar cells. Appeal Brief. 8. Thus, according to Appellant, the TEC layers of Skryabin would not be deposited on the first solar cell of Narayanan and bonded to the second solar cell of Narayanan to electrically connect the first solar cell to the second solar cell, as required by claim 1. Id. at 9. Instead, Skryabin’s TEC layers coat the faces of the center substrate. Id. The Examiner responds that the rejections do not separate the solar cells of Narayanan with Skryabin’s center substrate, do not interpose Skryabin’s center substrate between Narayana’s middle and top solar cells. Ans. 20, 22. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner relies on hindsight to selectively pick and choose certain components from the references and combine them in a manner not suggested by the references. See Reply Br. 4. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, substituting Narayanan’s solar cells for the NDSC devices of Skryabin would not result in a TCC layer being “deposited on or above the first n-type doped semiconductor layer of the first solar cell and bonded to the second p-type doped semiconductor layer Appeal 2020-003146 Application 11/301,529 6 of the second solar cell” as required by claim 1. The TEC layers between the front and rear devices in Skryabin are deposited onto a central substrate. See Skryabin Fig. 1, ¶¶ 19–21. Skryabin’s invention provides for “[t]hree or more substrates arranged in a closed-spaced parallel relationship to one another, the substrates comprising: a center substrate having first and second faces, or two substrates back to back having displayed first and a second faces, . . . a first outer substrate . . . , and a second outer substrate.” Id. ¶¶ 20–23 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s statement that Skryabin’s central substrate is simply not included in the rejection has the earmark of a “mere conclusory statement” and lacks any “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Where, as here, the necessary reasoning is absent, we cannot simply assume that “an ordinary artisan would be awakened to modify prior art in such a way as to lead to an obviousness rejection.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013 (quoting In re Nouvel, 493 Fed. Appx. 85, 92 (Fed. Cir. 2012))). “It is in such circumstances, moreover, that it is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias.” Id. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Skryabin in view of Abe and Narayan. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2 and 4–27 for these same reasons. Appeal 2020-003146 Application 11/301,529 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–27 103(a) Skryabin, Narayanan, Abe 1, 2, 4–27 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–27 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation