Hans-Joachim Schulze et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

15465688 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

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.
15/465,688 03/22/2017 Hans-Joachim Schulze P66742US 4336
81722 7590 09/27/2019
Viering, Jentschura & Partner mbB - Inf
c/o
444 Brickell Avenue
Suite 51270
Miami, FL 33131
EXAMINER
PARK, SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
patint@vjp.de
vjp-us@vjp.de
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HANS-JOACHIM SCHULZE, ANDREAS HAERTL,
FRANCISCO JAVIER SANTOS RODRIGUEZ,
ANDRÉ RAINER STEGNER, and DANIEL SCHLOEGL

Appeal 2018-008832
Application 15/465,688
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–16, and 18–22, all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon
Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008832
Application 15/465,688
2
According to Appellant, the following rejection is presented for our
review:2
Claims 1, 4–16, and 18–22 rejected under 35 USC §103 as
unpatentable over Zhu (US 2014/0083493 A1; Mar. 27, 2014), in view of
Urena (WO 2013/020867 A1; Feb. 14, 2013), Wang (US 8,288,297 B1; Oct.
16, 2012), and Bachrach (US 2009/0077805 A1; Mar. 26, 2009).
Appellant’s invention relates to a semiconductor device. (Spec. ¶ 2).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
a semiconductor body;
a plurality of regions in the semiconductor body each
comprising a eutectic of a first metallization material and
material of the semiconductor body, wherein at least two of
the plurality of regions are non-contiguous and
neighboring regions separated by one or more portions of
the semiconductor body; and
a second metallization material disposed over the
semiconductor body, wherein the plurality of regions
comprises a first region non-contiguous to a second region

2 As a result of the Response to Final Office Action filed February 7, 2018,
which cancelled claim 3 and incorporated the limitations therein into claim
1, we understand the Examiner to have modified the rejections in the Final
Office Action consistent with Appellant’s discussion of the rejections in the
Appeal Brief. (Advisory Action entered March 8, 2018; see Ans. 3
confirming that the amendment cancelling claim 3 and incorporating the
limitation in claim 1 had been entered.) Further, we note that claims 13–15
were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of
Zhu and Lin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0168250 A1) (Final Act. 26). Based
on the statements presented in Appellant’s Brief it appears this rejection has
been withdrawn. (App. Br. 8). The Examiner has not provided a specific
discussion addressing this rejection and the Answer. We therefore consider
this rejection to be withdrawn.
Appeal 2018-008832
Application 15/465,688
3
neighboring the first region and wherein the plurality of
regions are spike-shaped regions, and
wherein the second metallization covers and contacts
the first region, the second region, and a portion of the
semiconductor body separating the first region from the
second region.
OPINION3
We have reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed by Appellant. (App. Br. 9–15).
The Examiner finds Zhu discloses a semiconductor device
comprising: a semiconductor body, a plurality of regions comprising a
eutectic of a first metallization material and material of the semiconductor
body, wherein at least two of the plurality of regions are non-contiguous and
neighboring regions separated by one or more portions of the semiconductor
body. (Final Act. 3; Fig. 1 & 2 and ¶¶ 15, 16, 20, and 34). The Examiner
finds the areas between element Ni and element Si are NiSi contact areas in
the semiconductor body, each contact area comprising a eutectic region of a
first metallization material and material of the semiconductor body. (Final
Act. 3–4; Fig. 1 & 2 and ¶¶ 15, 16, 20, and 34). The Examiner finds Zhu
does not explicitly disclose the plurality of NiSi contact regions are spike-
shaped regions. Addressing this difference the Examiner cites Urena. The
Examiner states:
Urena discloses wherein the plurality of regions are
spike-shaped regions (see Fig. 1 & pg. 13 lines 27-32 & pg. 14
& pg. 15 lines 1-20 silicon semiconductor substrate body
element 31, metal element 40, eutectic regions elements 34 of
the metal element 40 and the silicon semiconductor substrate
body formed by heating above a eutectic temperature of metal-

3 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2018-008832
Application 15/465,688
4
Si, wherein the eutectic regions elements 34 are spike-shaped-
note that metal element 40 directly contacts silicon
semiconductor substrate body element 31 only in certain
portions elements 30 and is heated to a eutectic temperature,
above 577 degrees Celcius, to form the spike-shaped eutectic
metal-Si regions; also see in particular pg. 14 lines 5-21 the
formation of the spike-shape is a result of aluminum in contact
with silicon being heated above the eutectic temperature of 577
degrees Celcius with a (100)-oriented substrate).
(Final Act. 9–10).
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to incorporate
the spike-shape for the plurality of metal-Si eutectic regions described by
Urena as the shape for the plurality of Ni Si eutectic regions of Zhu in order
to provide a device having a good shielding of the metal-Si eutectic regions.
(Final Act. 10).4
We agree with Appellant that the structural differences between the
devices of Zhu and Urena would not lead or motivate one skilled in the art to
combine the devices in the manner proposed by the Examiner. (App. Br.
10). Urena discloses contacting the p-type emitter 32 at the front side of the
substrate 31 with a contact originating at the back side of the substrate
(opposite side). (Urena pg.14, ll. 22–25). On the other hand, Zhu’s p-type
and n-type regions in the solar cells are accessible from the back side of the
substrate (same side). (Zhu ¶ 10). Urena discloses forming a contact 34
extending through n-type substrate 31 in order to electrically contact the p-
type emitter 32 at the front side. (Fig. l (d)). Urena discloses the “highly
doped recrystallized regions 35 provide a good shielding of the contacts 34

4 The Examiner cites Bachrach for describing the back contact layer that
contains a metal layer selected from a group consisting of zinc (Zn), tin (Sn),
aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), nickel (Ni) and vanadium (V).
(Final Act. 12; Bachrach ¶ 77 Fig. 3).
Appeal 2018-008832
Application 15/465,688
5
from minority carriers.” (Urena pg.14, l. 31–pg. 15, l. 15). Thus, Urena’s
highly doped recrystallized regions 35 and not the triangular or “spike-
shaped” regions provide the benefits of good shielding. Consequently, the
Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning why one skilled in the art
would have incorporated contacts designed to contact a front side from a
back side into Zhu’s invention.
We also agree with Appellant that Bachrach only discloses a back
contact can use metals such as nickel or aluminum. (App. Br. 14). The
Examiner has not adequately explained why aluminum and nickel would
react similarly in all respects and equally lead to the formation of triangular
shaped regions. We further agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
pointed to evidence that the nickel-silicon contact of Zhu would have been
able to form spike -shaped regions as required by the claimed invention.
(App. Br. 14–15).
For the reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–16, and 18–
22
§ 103
Zhu, Urena and
Bachrach
1, 4–16, and
18–22

Overall Outcome 1, 4–16, and
18–22

Appeal 2018-008832
Application 15/465,688
6

REVERSED