Ex Parte Noemayr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2018

13073663 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/073,663 03/28/2011
23911 7590 10/26/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christel Noemayr
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.
l 14760.63443US 8337
EXAMINER
MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
apomeroy@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTEL NO EMA YR and CLAUS ZIMMERMANN
Appeal2018-000790
Application 13/073,663
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4--9, 11-13, and 15-22. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed March 28, 2011, the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated November 14, 2016,
Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed April 27, 2017, the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated August 30, 2017, and Appellants' Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed October 30, 2017.
2 Appellants identify Astrium GmbH as the real party in interest (Appeal
Br. 1).
Appeal2018-000790
Application 13/073,663
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a multi-junction solar cell with a plurality of
stacked pn-junctions (Spec. ,r 2).
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A multi-junction solar cell, comprising:
a first main surface and a second main surface
opposite to the first main surface of a semiconductor body,
wherein a topmost pn-junction of a plurality of pn-junctions
stacked on top of each other adjoins to the first main surface;
a cell edge of the semiconductor body defining a
shape of the first and the second main surfaces;
an encapsulant arranged on the first main surface to
protect the semiconductor body from an environment;
a mesa groove arranged on the first main surface,
wherein the mesa groove is filled with the encapsulant, and a
coverglass is located on the encapsulant to seal the solar cell
and the mesa groove on the first main surface,
wherein the mesa groove is located adjacent to the cell
edge to provide an inner cell area and a mesa wall,
wherein a conductive or antistatic material that
provides an electrical shunt path is applied on the cell edge
which extends between a back side of the solar cell and a
front side of the solar cell, the back side being provided by
the second main surface and the front side being provided by
the coverglass, thereby at least directly contacting the
coverglass, the encapsulant, and the mesa wall.
REJECTIONS
The following prior art has been relied on in support of the rejections
of the claims on appeal:
Rancourt
Hilgarth
us 4,293,732
US 2008/0000523 Al
2
Oct. 6, 1981
Jan.3,2008
Appeal2018-000790
Application 13/073,663
Weidman US 2009/0142880 Al
US 2009/0165851 Al
US 2010/0101628 Al
US 2010/0116327 Al
US 2010/0243038 Al
June 4, 2009
July 2, 2009
Apr. 29, 2010
May 13, 2010
Sept. 30, 2010
Sekimoto
Poe
Comfeld
Kukulka
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a): 3
1. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 18-21 as unpatentable
over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth;
2. Claim 7 as unpatentable over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth, and
further in view of Sekimoto;
3. Claim 9 as unpatentable over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth, and
further in view of Weidman
4. Claim 11 as unpatentable over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth,
and further in view of Rancourt
5. Claim 13 as unpatentable over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth,
and further in view of Poe
6. Claim 1 7 as unpatentable over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth,
and further in view of Kukulka; and
7. Claim 22 as unpatentable over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth,
and further in view of Yamamoto.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
3 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013 effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute.
3
Appeal2018-000790
Application 13/073,663
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections.")). A dispositive
issue before us in this appeal, therefore, is whether Appellants have
identified reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Comfeld's solar
cell, once modified in view of Hilgarth, would provide anti-static connectors
connecting the upper and lower cell electrodes of the solar cell and running
along the outer edge of the cell so as to be in contact with the encapsulant,
cover glass, and mesa wall ( compare Ans. 5 with Appeal Br. 7-9 and Reply
Br. 4). After considering the evidence presented in this appeal and each of
Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's responses thereto, we are
persuaded that Appellants have identified reversible error in the above
finding. Because the obviousness rejection of claim 1 based on Comfeld
and Hilgarth relies on this finding, we cannot sustain this rejection. In
addition, because the Examiner does not rely on the additional tertiary prior
art to remedy this deficiency in the combination of Comfeld and Hilgarth,
we likewise cannot sustain the rejections of dependent claims 4--9, 11-13,
and 15-22.
The Examiner finds Comfeld teaches the solar cell of claim 1 except,
among other things, an anti-static member extending between the back and
front sides of the cell directly contacting the cover glass, encapsulant, and
mesa wall (Ans. 3--4). However, the Examiner finds Hilgarth teaches a solar
cell comprising an anti-static external connector contacting the front cover
glass and front of the solar cell in order to protect against static charge (id. at
4, citing Hilgarth Fig. 14 and ,r 133). The Examiner concludes it would have
4
Appeal2018-000790
Application 13/073,663
been obvious to modify Comfeld's solar cell with an anti-static external
connector contacting the front cover glass and front of the cell in order to
protect against static charge as taught by Hilgarth (id.). The Examiner finds
that although Hilgarth teaches the connectors run along the edge of and
attach to upper and lower surfaces of the solar cell, Hilgarth fails to teach the
relative contact locations (id. at 4--5). Yet, the Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to connect the upper and lower anti-static connector leads
at the outer edges of the electrode surfaces given a known set of known
locations where these leads could be connected (id. at 5). The Examiner
then finds that, when so connected, the anti-static connectors run along the
outer edge of the solar cell in direct contact with the cover glass, the
encapsulant, and the mesa wall (id.).
Appellants argue that Hilgarth fails to teach or suggest an electrical
shunt path that directly contacts the coverglass, the encapsulant, and the
mesa wall (Appeal Br. 7-8). In particular, Appellants contend that although
Hilgarth teaches connectors 200, 202 extending upward between solar cells,
these connectors electrically interconnect the solar cells and carry charge
from one cell to the next (id. at 8). Also, Appellants contend that Hilgarth
fails to disclose that these connectors might be modified to directly contact
the encapsulant or the mesa wall, or to directly contact the cover glass (id.).
Instead, Appellants urge that Hilgarth teaches these connectors
contact protective diodes lOal, 10b2, not the sides of these diodes, adhesive
layer 78, nor the sides of cover glass 77 (Appeal Br. 9). Also, Appellants
urge that Hilgarth, paragraph 133, teaches that the connectors extend past
and never contact the cover glass (id.). Also, Appellants urge that Hilgarth,
Figure 14, shows that connectors extend parallel to the sides of the cover
5
Appeal2018-000790
Application 13/073,663
glass, the encapsulant, and the side wall of the solar cell without contacting
them (id.).
As we stated earlier, Appellants' arguments are persuasive of
reversible error. As Appellants urge, Hilgarth Figure 14, shows that
connectors 200, 202 extend parallel to and spaced from the sides of the
coverglass, the encapsulant, and the solar cell. Although Hilgarth discloses
that corresponding connectors offer the possibility of connecting the front
side of coverglass 77 to the cell against electrostatic charge (Hilgarth ,r 133),
the Examiner fails to direct our attention to any support for a connector
directly contacting either the encapsulant or the side wall of the solar cell
(which would correspond to the mesa wall in Comfeld), nor do we find any.
Absent such a teaching, the Examiner's obviousness conclusion lacks
sufficient rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) ("[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness."), quoted with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007). Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject claim 1, and claims 4--9, 11-13, and 15-22 which depend
therefrom.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1, 4--9, 11-13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
6
Appeal2018-000790
Application 13/073,663
over Comfeld in view of Hilgarth, alone or further in view of any one of
Sekimoto, Weidman, Rancourt, Poe, Kukulka, and Yamamoto, is reversed.
REVERSED
7