Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 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