Geoffrey Kinsey et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2021

2020003146 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2021)

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