Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 2021

2020001642 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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. 15/227,968 08/04/2016 Takahiro MISHIMA NII.090.0008.NP 2787 126971 7590 05/04/2021 METROLEX IP LAW GROUP, PLLC - SONIC 900 17th Street, NW. Suite 320 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER TRINH, THANH TRUC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2021 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): team-o@metrolexip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte TAKAHIRO MISHIMA __________ Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–8, and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. Appeal Brief dated June 10, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 3. Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 2 unpatentable over Yamaguchi2 in view of Kobayashi.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized. 1. A solar cell, comprising: a photoelectric converter having a p-type amorphous silicon layer on a major surface of a semiconductor substrate and an n-type amorphous silicon layer on the major surface, wherein in a plan view of the semiconductor substrate, the p-type amorphous silicon layer and the n-type amorphous silicon layer partially overlap; a p-side electrode disposed on the p-type amorphous silicon layer and formed from a plating film; an n-side electrode disposed on the n-type amorphous silicon layer and formed from a plating film; a p-side seed layer disposed between the p-type amorphous silicon layer and the p-side electrode in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate; an n-side seed layer disposed between the n-type amorphous silicon layer and the n-side electrode in the thickness direction, wherein the p-side seed layer and the n-side seed layer are adjacent one another in a first direction along the major surface of the semiconductor substrate; and an insulating layer between an end of the p-side seed layer and an end of the n-side seed layer, the end of the p-side [seed] layer and the end of the n-side seed layer being adjacent one another in the first direction, wherein 2 WO 2013/081104 A1, dated June 6, 2013, to Yamaguchi et al. The Examiner relies on the “equivalent English publication” US 2015/0027532 A1, published January 29, 2015, in the obviousness rejection on appeal. Non-Final Office Action dated December 31, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”), at 3. 3 US 2005/0109391 A1, published May 26, 2005, to Kobayashi. Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 3 the insulating layer comprises a head extending in the first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction and covering the end of the p-side seed layer and the end of the n-side seed layer, respectively, such that the head of the insulating layer is partially covered by at least one of the p- side electrode and the n-side electrode, and in the plan view of the semiconductor substrate, the insulating layer is disposed in a region in which the p-type amorphous silicon layer and the n- type amorphous silicon layer partially overlap, a width W1, in the first direction, between two closest points of the p-side electrode and the n-side electrode that are adjacent one another is greater than a width W2, in the first direction, between two closest points of the end of the p-side seed layer and the end of the n-side seed layer that are adjacent one another, a first distance, in the thickness direction, between a lower surface of the p-side electrode and an upper surface of the p-side seed layer gradually decreases as far from the n-side seed layer in the first direction, and a second distance, in the thickness direction, between a lower surface of the n-side electrode and an upper surface of the n-side seed layer gradually decreases as far from the p-side seed layer in the second direction opposite to the first direction, and a width W3 of the head in the first direction is at least ten times the width W2. Appeal Br. 22–23. B. DISCUSSION Directing our attention to Yamaguchi Figures 1–4, the Examiner finds Yamaguchi discloses a solar cell. Non-Final Act. 3. Yamaguchi Figure 4 is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 4 Yamaguchi Figure 4 is a schematic cross sectional diagram of a solar cell according to one embodiment of the invention. The Examiner finds Yamaguchi teaches that insulating layer 23 is configured such that the width W1 between the two closest points of p-side electrode 21p and n-side electrode 22n is greater than the width W2 between the two closest points of the ends of p-side seed layer 17 and n-side seed layer 18 as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner finds Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the width W3 of the head of the insulating layer (23) is at least ten times the width W2 between two closest points of the ends of p-side seed layer [17] and n-side seed layer [18] (or the width of the bottom side of the groove) [as claimed]. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Kobayashi discloses a V-shaped groove that “increase[s] contact area to obtain peeling resist effect” in a solar cell. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that a V-shaped groove between Yamaguchi’s p-side seed layer 17 and n-side seed layer 18 also would have been expected to achieve the peeling resist effect disclosed in Kobayashi. See Non-Final Act. 4; see also Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 5 Ans. 44 (finding that “peeling resist effect is meant that the layer(s) deposited in the groove will have the effect of resisting the peeling, e.g. increasing contact area thereby increasing adhesion to resist the peeling”). Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the groove between Yamaguchi’s p-side seed layer 17 and n-side seed layer 18 to have a V-shape as taught by Kobayashi. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that [b]y having the groove between layers 17 and 18 to be [a] V-shaped groove . . . , the solar cell of modified Yamaguchi will have the width W3 to be substantially greater than ten times the width W2 [as claimed] because the W2 is the narrow width of the V-section bottom of the groove.[5] Ans. 7. In that regard, Kobayashi discloses that the preferred width of the grooves (corresponding to W3) is about 30 to 2000 µm. Kobayashi ¶ 61. Kobayashi Figure 1 is reproduced below. Kobayashi Figure 1 is a sectional view showing a photosensitized solar cell according to an embodiment of the invention. 4 Examiner’s Answer dated November 1, 2019. 5 In the proposed modification of Yamaguchi, the Examiner finds that W1 continues to be greater than W2 as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5. Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 6 The Appellant contends that Kobayashi discloses that “‘a groove of V- section is formed on a principal plane of a transparent substrate 8. Such a groove has a wall surface 8a inclined in a V-form against the principal plane of the transparent substrate 8.’” Appeal Br. 18 (citing Kobayashi ¶ 57). According to the Appellant, Kobayashi also discloses that “[o]wing to the V-section of a processed groove, the current collector wiring 7 and semiconductor layer 5 can be easily formed on the inner surface of the groove, the contact area between the semiconductor layer 5 and the transparent electrode layer 6 increases, and peeling resist effect of the semiconductor layer 5 can be obtained.” Appeal Br. 18 (citing Kobayashi ¶ 58). Based on those disclosures in Kobayashi, the Appellant argues that “the solar cell of Yamaguchi might be modified by forming a V-shaped groove 8a taught by Kobayashi on a principle surface of a substrate 11 of Yamaguchi, in order to obtain peeling resist effect of semiconductor layers 14p or 15n as asserted in the Office Action.” Appeal Br. 18–19. However, the Appellant argues that the combined structure would still not change the width size of the head 23a of the mushroom-shaped insulating layer 23 [in Yamaguchi] and the resulting arrangement would not have “a width W3 of the head in the first direction is at least ten times the width W2” as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 19. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the Examiner explains, “[t]he modification is not about forming a groove in a semiconductor substrate (11) of Yamaguchi” as argued by the Appellant. Ans. 6. Rather, the “[t]he modification is about modifying the shape of the groove between layers 17 and 18 to be [a] V-shaped groove to take the advantage of increasing contact area and obtaining peeling resist effect” as taught by Kobayashi. Ans. 6 (emphasis added); see also Non-Final Act. 4 (concluding that it would have been Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 7 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of Yamaguchi’s groove to “increase contact area to obtain peeling resist effect”). “[A]ssuming the trunk of the insulating layer 23 of Yamaguchi could be modified in a V-shape as proposed [by the Examiner,]” the Appellant summarily contends that “the peeling resist effect of the insulating layer 23 would decrease.” Appeal Br. 20. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant elaborates on that general contention arguing that “it is well understood by those of skill in the art that a conical member is easier to be put into and out of a conical hole than a cylindrical member being put into and out of a cylindrical hole.” Reply Br. 18.6 The Appellant, however, does not direct us to any evidence to support its argument. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.”). In the Reply Brief, the Appellant also argues for the first time on appeal that power collection efficiency would decrease in Yamaguchi’s solar cell if the groove between seed layers 17 and 18 were modified to have a V-shape as proposed by the Examiner, and as a result, Yamaguchi’s device would no longer be suitable for its intended purpose.7 Reply Br. 19–20. According to 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2), “[a]ny argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.” In this case, the Appellant’s argument is not responsive to an argument raised for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer. Moreover, the Appellant does not show good cause why 6 Reply Brief dated December 22, 2019. 7 Notably, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence to support its argument. Schulze, 346 F.2d at 602. Appeal 2020-001642 Application 15/227,968 8 its argument could not have been raised in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, the Appellant’s argument is not timely and has not been considered on appeal. Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s factual findings in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of dependent claims 2, 5–8, and 10–12. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 5–8, and 10–12 also is sustained. C. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–8, 10–12 103 Yamaguchi, Kobayashi 1, 2, 5–8, 10– 12 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED