Ex Parte Loscutoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2018

13718503 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/718,503 12/18/2012
149776 7590 10/19/2018
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt/SunPower
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 SW FIFTH A VENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Loscutoff
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.
131815-228310 9368
EXAMINER
HORTON, DUJUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2018 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
ghoover@schwabe.com
mscardina@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL LOSCUTOFF, PETER J. COUSINS,
STEVEN EDWARD MOLESA, and ANN W ALDHAUER
Appeal2017-010080
Application 13/718,503
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed December 18, 2012
("Spec."); the Final Office Action mailed August 24, 2016 ("Final Act.");
the Appeal Br. filed January 23, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); the Examiner's
Answer mailed May 25, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed July 24,
2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-010080
Application 13/718,503
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 14--21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to methods of fabricating an emitter region of
a solar cell using n-type doped silicon nano-particles. Claim 1, reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with the disputed
limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of fabricating an emitter region of a solar cell,
the method comprising:
forming a plurality of regions ofN-type doped silicon
nano-particles on a first surface of a substrate of the solar cell;
forming a P-type dopant-containing layer on the plurality
of regions ofN-type doped silicon nano-particles and on the
first surface of the substrate between the regions ofN-type
doped silicon nano-particles; [[and]]
mixing at least a portion of the P-type dopant-containing
layer with at least a portion of each of the plurality of regions of
N-type doped silicon nano-particles; and
subsequent to mixing the P-type dopant-containing layer
with the regions ofN-type doped silicon nano-particles,
diffusing N-type do pants from the regions of N-type
doped silicon nano-particles and forming corresponding N-type
diffusion regions in the substrate, and diffusing P-type dopants
from the P-type dopant-containing layer and forming
corresponding P-type diffusion regions in the substrate,
between the N-type diffusion regions.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, SunPower Corporation, identified as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal2017-010080
Application 13/718,503
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Smith et al. US 6,998,288 B 1 Feb. 14,2006
("Smith")
Swanson US 2008/0121279 Al May 29, 2008
Bonner et al. US 2008/0314443 Al Dec. 25, 2008
("Bonner")
Leung et al. US 2009/0239363 Al Sept. 24, 2009
("Leung")
Abbott et al. US 2010/0275982 Al Nov. 4, 2010
("Abbott")
De Ceuster et al. US 2011/0272016 Al Nov. 10, 2011
("De Ceuster")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant seeks review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a): (1) claims 1, 3-5, and 9 over
De Ceuster in view of Swanson; (2) claim 6 over De Ceuster and Swanson,
further in view of Abbott; (3) claims 7, 8, and 10 over De Ceuster and
Swanson, further in view of Leung; (4) claims 12, 15-17, 19, and 21 over
De Ceuster in view of Swanson and Smith; (5) claim 14 over De Ceuster,
Swanson, Smith, and further in view of Leung; ( 6) claim 18 over De
Ceuster, Swanson, Smith, and further in view of Abbott; and (7) claim 20
over De Ceuster, Swanson, Smith, and further in view of Bonner. Final Act.
2-11; App. Br. 10-17.
OPINION
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether De Ceuster in view of
Swanson teaches "diffusing N-type dopants from the regions ofN-type
3
Appeal2017-010080
Application 13/718,503
doped silicon nano-particles and forming corresponding N-type diffusion
regions in the substrate," a limitation common to all pending claims. See
App.Br. 10-11, 14, 19-23.
The Examiner finds that De Ceuster teaches all elements of claim 1
except that then-type doped silicon layer is a nanoparticles layer. Final Act.
3. The Examiner finds that Swanson discloses an n-type emitter layer
comprising doped silicon nanoparticles, and nanoparticles increase the
operating efficiency of a solar cell. Id.
Appellant argues that Swanson discloses p-emitters and n-emitters
composed of nanoparticle silicon are formed on a tunnel oxide and not
directly on the substrate. App. Br. 12, 15; Reply Br. 2, 4. Appellant
contends that Swanson does not disclose using the nanoparticle n-type
emitters to diffuse dopants into an underlying substrate to form
corresponding N-type diffusion regions. App. Br. 12-13, 16; Reply Br. 2-3.
Although Appellant's statements regarding Swanson are accurate,
they fail to directly address the rejection, which relies on De Ceuster as a
primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("The
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it
that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking Swanson individually
when the rejection is based on a combination of De Ceuster and Swanson.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
4
Appeal2017-010080
Application 13/718,503
where the rejection is based upon ... a combination of references."). Each
reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See id.
Substantial evidence supports the Examiner's finding that De Ceuster
teaches "diffusing n-type dopants from the regions of n-type doped silicon
particles and forming correspond[ing] n-type diffusion regions in the
substrate," even though it does not teach that then-type doped silicon layer
is a nanoparticles layer. See Final Act. 3.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
recognized that modification of the silicon oxide of De Ceuster with silicon
nanoparticles of Swanson amounts to improving similar devices in the same
way-an obvious choice given that Appellant does not show that such
modification would have been beyond the skill of that person. See KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's
skill.). Moreover, one of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill,
creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further
modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See id. at 418
(2007) ("a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ").
We conclude that Appellant fails to demonstrate harmful error in the
rejection of claim 1 as obvious over De Ceuster in view of Swanson. We
sustain the rejection. Because Appellant relies on the same argument to
5
Appeal2017-010080
Application 13/718,503
overcome the rejections of all other pending claims (see Appeal Brief 13-
16), we also sustain the rejections of claims 3-10, 12, and 14--21.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 14--21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6