BEIJING APOLLO DING RONG SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD .

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

15060300 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2020)

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.
15/060,300 03/03/2016 Paul Shufflebotham 7516-164DIV 6765
22208 7590 09/16/2020
THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC
11800 SUNRISE VALLEY DRIVE
15TH FLOOR
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
PADGETT, MARIANNE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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):
ptonotices@marburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL SHUFFLEBOTHAM, ROBERT MARTINSON,
HEINRICH VON BUNAU, KEVIN LYNCH, and MATHEW SHEFFIELD
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 4–8.3
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Mar. 3, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Nov. 5, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Mar. 5, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer dated June 3, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Aug. 5, 2019
(“Reply Br.”).
2 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 Beijing
Apollo Ding Rong Solar Technology Co. Appeal Br. 2.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
“The present invention is directed generally to a vacuum deposition
apparatus and method . . . .” Spec. ¶ 1. In accordance with the inventive
method, thin-film solar cells are made by continuously moving a web foil
substrate layer “through one or more vacuum deposition chambers (referred
to as process chambers) at a relatively constant rate without stopping while
the web is fed from air into the process chambers under vacuum and while
the web from one roll is spliced to the web from another roll.” Id. ¶ 17. The
apparatus used in the invention, as shown in Figure 2, includes process
modules 40 (e.g., 40a–40d) positioned between input module 30 (e.g., a load
module) and output module 34 (e.g., an unload module). Id. ¶ 20. A web
substrate 12, such as a metal or polymer web foil, is moved throughout the
apparatus by rollers 38, or other devices. Id. ¶ 21. Input module 30 includes
input spool 32 on which substrate material roll 50 is placed, web splicing
device 56, and accumulator 58. Id. ¶ 23. Web splicing device 56 splices a
new roll’s leading edge 54 and the overlapped old roll’s trailing edge 52. Id.
¶ 24; see Fig. 4. Accumulator 58 allows substrate 12 to continue moving
through process modules 40 at a relatively constant rate during splicing. Id.
¶ 25. More specifically accumulator 58 includes first and second sets of
rollers 60, 62 that are interspaced and movable relative to one another so as
to adjust the path length that substrate 12 must follow when travelling
between entrance point 64 and exit point 66. Id. ¶ 26.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A layer deposition method, comprising:
passing a first web substrate from an input module not
under vacuum, through independently isolated, connected
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

3
process modules under vacuum, and to an output module not
under vacuum, such that the first web substrate continuously
extends from the input module to the output module while
passing through an accumulator of the input module and the
process modules;
wherein during the passing, the method further
comprises:
removing a trailing edge of the first web substrate from
an input spool in the input module;
mounting a second web substrate on the input spool;
attaching the trailing edge of the first web substrate to a
leading edge of the second web substrate;
changing a length of a path of the first web substrate
through the accumulator during the removing, the mounting and
the attaching such that the first web substrate passes through the
process modules during the removing, the mounting and the
attaching without stopping; and
depositing, by sputtering in respective ones of the process
modules, a first electrode, a copper indium gallium selenide p-
type absorber layer, an n-type semiconductor layer and a
transparent second electrode on the web substrate to form a
solar cell, as the first web substrate moves through the process
modules during the removing, the mounting and the attaching.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 4–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Saida (US 4,763,601, iss. Aug. 16, 1988) and Kissell (US 4,460,430,
iss. July 17, 1984) in view of Hollars (US 2009/0145746 Al, pub. June 11,
2009) and optionally Krengel (US 5,474,227, iss. Dec. 12, 1995).
2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Saida and
Kissell in view of Hollars and Kyoto Kikai (GB 1,069,862), and optionally
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

4
Krengel and Alexander (US 2,963,001, iss. Dec. 6, 1960) or Alexander (US
1,713,485, iss. May 14, 1929).
OPINION
As to the rejection of claims 1 and 4–7, the Appellant explicitly states
that “dependent claims 2 and 4–7 stand or fall together with independent
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant argues, in general, that the record
evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that the ordinary artisan
would have modified Saida’s process to utilize an accumulator as taught by
Kissell. See generally id. at 4–9. The Appellant’s more specific arguments
regarding the Examiner’s combination of Saida and Kissell, discussed in
detail below, are unpersuasive for the reasons given in the Final Office
Action (e.g., pp. 3–8, 16–17), the Answer (e.g., pp. 3–8), and below.
Saida discloses “[a] continuous composite coating apparatus for
coating a continuous strip.” Saida Abstract. The apparatus includes at least
two treating zones (e.g., a plasma chemical vapor deposition coating zone,
an ion-plating coating zone, a sputtering coating zone, etc.), which are
arranged in series between a pair of strip supply/take-up devices. Id.
According to Saida, in known coating apparatuses, “[t]he treating zones
are sealed by suitable sealing means from the exterior and from the adjacent
treating zones, so that the strip which runs through these treating zones [is]
treated under different types of treating atmosphere.” Id. at 1:35–39. Saida
discloses that the sealing means typically includes upper and lower sealing
rolls that contact the strip’s upper and lower surfaces. Id. at 1:39–42.
According to Saida, a drawback of this configuration is that “the upper
and/or the lower surface of the strip, which has just been coated or which is
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

5
just going to be treated in a treating zone tends to be undesirably damaged
due to direct contact with the sealing roll or rolls.” Id. at 1:46–51.
To eliminate damage to the coated strip surface, Saida utilizes guide
rollers 19 that contact only the strip’s upper, uncoated side. See id. at 4:24–
31, 5:42–44. Guide rollers 19 are positioned in slits 18 in partition walls 14
that define the respective zones as well as in slits 18 in partition walls 21
within sealing zones 5, 5a, 5b. Id. at 4:10–24, 6:33–38, Fig. 2. Saida
discloses that the devices within the treating zones are arranged in a
common vacuum vessel 6. Id. at 2:49–50. Supply/take-up devices 1a, 1b
may be inside or outside vacuum vessel 6. Id. at 2:49–50, 6:30–33, Figs. 1,
2. Saida discloses that when supply/take-up devices 1a, 1b are located
outside vacuum vessel 6, sealing zones 5a, 5b preferably are provided with a
pair of seal rolls 25 made of an elastic material and disposed adjacent to the
slit in the partition wall on the atmosphere-side of the sealing zone to form
an effective seal between the sealing zone interior and the atmosphere. Id. at
6:4–46. According to Saida, “[s]uch elastic sealing rolls do not have
substantial risk of damaging the surface of the strip S or any coating layer
formed thereon.” Id. at 6:46–48.
Saida discloses that during operation of the continuous coating
apparatus,
it is often necessary to treat successive coils of the strip. In such
a case, a subsequent coil is mounted on the supply/take-up
device la or lb on the supply side after the preceding coil has
been exhausted, and the leading end of the strip uncoiled from
the subsequent coil is connected to the trailing end of the
preceding strip so as to be fed into the treating zones.
Saida 7:22–29. Saida discloses that this task is easier when supply/take-up
devices 1a, 1b are located outside vacuum vessel 6 because it is unnecessary
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

6
to release and then reestablish the vacuum around supply/take-up devices 1a,
1b. See id. at 7:30–45.
The Examiner found, and the Appellant does not dispute, that Saida
recognizes the importance of process speed, but does not disclose the
particular means or techniques for connecting leading and tailing ends of
strips. Final Act. 6; see generally Appeal Br. The Examiner determined that
the ordinary artisan would have utilized an accumulator to join the strips’
leading and tailing ends based on the advantages described by Kissell, for
example, maintaining a constant processing rate. Final Act. 7–8.
The Appellant contends that the configuration of Kissell’s
accumulator is such that rollers contact both sides of a substrate multiple
times. Appeal Br. 5–6. The Appellant argues that Saida teaches against
contacting both sides of a strip and, therefore, the ordinary artisan would not
have utilized Kissell’s accumulator in Saida’s method. Id. at 7. The
Appellant acknowledges that Saida discloses embodiments (e.g., Fig. 2)
wherein seal rolls 25 contact both surfaces of strip S, but argues that Saida’s
seal rolls 25 are made of a special elastic material that does not damage the
strip’s deposition surface. Id. at 7–8. “In contrast, the accumulator 33 of
Kissell is not made of a special elastic material. Thus, the accumulator 33 of
Kissell would likely damage the deposition surface of Saida.” Id. at 8.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it fails to address
the Examiner’s finding that the ordinary artisan would have modified
Kissell’s accumulator to use rollers comprising the same type of elastic
material described by Saida as non-damaging. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 4;
Reply Br. 2–3. Moreover, the Appellant’s argument that Kissell’s
accumulator “would likely damage the deposition surface of Saida” (Appeal
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

7
Br. 8 (emphasis added)) is merely speculative as it is not supported by
persuasive evidence. See Reply Br. 4–5 (arguing, without supporting
evidence, that “even if the rubber or plastic rollers of Saida were employed
in the apparatus of Kissell, a skilled artisan would reasonably conclude that
the combination would significantly increase the likelihood of substrate
damage, which would degrade the appearance and corrosion resistance
benefits provided by the device of Saida”); Ans. 6.
The Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan would not have had a
reason to use Kissell’s accumulator because Saida does not utilize a constant
substrate movement speed and does not move the strip in a single direction.
Appeal Br. 8. Rather, Saida periodically stops moving the strip and then
reverses its direction of movement. Id. The Appellant argues that the
Examiner has not identified a benefit to modifying Saida to include an
accumulator which is designed to move a substrate at a constant speed in a
single direction. Id. at 9. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
because, as explained by the Examiner, Saida’s disclosure of stopping the
process and reversing the strip’s movement direction is limited to a specific
embodiment. Ans. 4. (citing Saida 5:16–29; Fig. 1).
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues that, in order to sputter a
layer on a strip as required by the claim 1 method, Saida’s apparatus must
reverse the strip’s direction of movement. Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Saida 5:10–
29). This argument is not persuasive because, again, it is based on a specific
embodiment in which ion-plating zone 2, sputtering zone 3, and plasma
CVD zone 4 are arranged in the order shown in Figure 1 and a particular
order of coating layers is desired. See Saida 5:10–29; Ans. 5. As found by
the Examiner, Saida discloses that “[t]he order of arrangement of the ion-
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

8
plating zone 2, sputtering zone 3 and the plasma CVD zone 4 shown in FIG.
1 is only illustrative and may be altered as desired insofar as these zones are
arranged in series” (Saida 3:64–67). Ans. 4–5.
The Appellant argues that Saida requires stopping movement of the
strip in order to connect the leading edge of a second strip to the trailing
edge of a first strip regardless of whether the supply/take-up devices 1a, 1b
are located inside or outside vacuum vessel 6. Reply Br. 7 (citing Saida
7:22–41). The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the Appellant
fails to consider the method resulting from the combined teachings of the
references. As noted above, supra pp. 5–6 (citing Saida 7:30–45), only when
Saida’s supply/take-up devices 1a, 1b are located inside vacuum vessel 6, is
it necessary to stop the strip’s movement to release and then reestablish the
vacuum around supply/take-up devices 1a, 1b. Thus, even if Saida does not
describe a means for connecting leading and trailing edges of strips without
stopping the strip’s movement, once modified to include an accumulator as
taught by Kissell, it would be unnecessary to stop movement of the strip, as
Kissell’s accumulator would provide a means to attach leading and trailing
edges yet allow the strip to continue moving through Saida’s treating zones.
See, e.g., Kissell 2:66–3:20, 5:46–55.
The Appellant also argues that Krengel and Hollars do not remedy the
deficiencies of Saida and Kissell, and that the Examiner has not explained
why the ordinary artisan would have modified Saida’s method to produce
solar cells. See Appeal Br. 9–11. These arguments are not persuasive for the
reasons stated by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 8–9. In the Reply
Brief, the Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan would not have used
Saida’s method to form solar cell layers because Hollars teaches moving the
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

9
substrates in one direction during sputter deposition of solar cell layers,
whereas in Saida’s method, the strips are moved in two different directions.
Reply Br. 8–9. This argument is unpersuasive because, as discussed above,
Saida does not require moving strips in different directions.
As to the rejection of claim 8, the Appellant argues that the Examiner
relied on impermissible hindsight reconstruction in determining that the
ordinary artisan would have modified Saida’s method to pass strip S
“through a pair of wiper seals . . . configured to provide second sealing
surfaces between atmosphere and the vacuum” (claim 8) based on Kyoto
Kikai’s disclosure. Appeal Br. 11–12. The Appellant argues, more
specifically, that Kyoto Kikai relates “to an apparatus for leading textiles in
and out of a high pressure treating chamber” and there would have been no
reason to apply these teachings “to a vacuum (i.e., low pressure) metal or
plastic coating method of Saida.” Id. The Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because it fails to explain why it was erroneous or unreasonable
for the Examiner to find that the ordinary artisan
would reasonably consider means for providing the degree of
pressure differentials as required in the process, regardless of
whether or not the vacuum or pressure sealing means were
employed for the same end-use, as it is the means & techniques
of providing different pressures on different sides of a barrier
(i.e. inside/outside of a chamber) that is relevant to . . . this
issue of a vacuum seal structure, where the engineering
involved therefore is independent of the particular process
being performed.
Ans. 10; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007)
(“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes,
and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”); In re Klein, 647 F.3d
Appeal 2019-005928
Application 15/060,300

10
1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (“Two separate tests define
the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning in the Final
Office Action and the Answer, and for the reasons discussed above, the
Appellant has not convinced us of reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness as to claims 1 and 4–8.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7 103(a) Saida, Kissell, Hollars,
Krengel
1, 4–7
8 103(a) Saida, Kissell, Hollars,
Krengel, Kyoto Kikai,
Alexander ’001,
Alexander ’485
8
Overall
Outcome:

1, 4–8

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED