Ex Parte Chaudhary et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

13223351 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/223,351 09/01/2011
53609 7590 03/28/2016
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P,C
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sumit Chaudhary
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.
508010 7208
EXAMINER
BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1757
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUMIT CHAUDHARY, KAI-MING HO,
JOONG-MOKPARK, KANWAR SINGHNALWA,
and WAI Y. LEUNG
Appeal2014-006818
Application 13/223,351
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a solar cell. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A solar cell, comprising:
a first electrode deposited onto a transparent substrate;
a grating material deposited directly onto the first
electrode;
an active layer deposited onto the grating, the active layer
configured to convert photonic energy into electrical energy;
and
Appeal2014-006818
Application 13/223,351
a second electrode deposited onto the active layer;
wherein the grating is configured to enhance light
absorption by the active layer.
Van Mol
Park
The References
US 2007/0221911 Al
US 2010/0186816 Al
Sep.27,2007
July 29, 2010
Seok-In Na et al., Surface relief gratings on poly(3-hexylthiophene) and
fullerene blends for efficient organic solar cells, 91 APPL. PHYSICS LETT.
173509-1 to 173509-3 (2007) [hereinafter Na].
M. Niggemann et al., Diffraction gratings and buried nano-electrodes-
architectures for organic solar cells, 451-52 THIN SOLID FILMS 619-23
(2004) [hereinafter Niggemann].
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 2 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Park, claims 1-3, 6-15, 17-22 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Niggemann in viev,r of Park, claims 3-5 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Niggemann in view of Park and Van Mol, claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Niggemann in view of Park and Na and claim 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Niggemann in view of Park, Van Moland Na.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims, i.e., claims 1 and 20. Claim 1 requires "a grating material deposited
directly onto the first electrode" and claim 20 requires "a periodic grating
structure deposited directly onto the transparent electrode and disposed
between the transparent electrode and a conductive layer". To meet the
requirement of a grating deposited directly onto an electrode the Examiner
relies upon Park (Ans. 2-9).
2
Appeal2014-006818
Application 13/223,351
Park discloses a solar cell comprising a grating ( 111) disposed directly
on a first electrode (110) by applying photoresist (112) to the first
electrode (110), forming a grating pattern (112a) on the photoresist (112)
using a photo lithography process, etching the first electrode (110) according
to the grating pattern (112a), and then removing the photoresist (112) (i-f 54;
Fig. 7D).
The Examiner asserts that Park discloses "a grating material deposited
directly onto the first electrode (Fig. 7E, 111, defined as a grating and shown
as a structure on the first electrode)" (Ans. 2-3) and that "in multiple places
in the Park reference, the grating is described as being deposited onto the
first electrode ([0041], [0055], [0066], [0069])" (Ans. 3).
Park discloses that the grating pattern (111) is disposed (by etching),
not deposited, on the first electrode (110) (i-fi-f 8, 41, 54, 55, 66, 69).
The Examiner asserts that the Appellants' Specification indicates that
the grating and first electrode can be the same material (Ans. 21-22).
The Appellants' Specification states that the grating material can be,
but is not limited to, photoresist, not that the grating and the first electrode
can be the same material (i-f 26).
The Examiner asserts that "since the claim is merely reciting the
deposition of a grating material onto the electrode and the teachings of Park
show both an electrode structure (Fig. 7E, 110) with a grating (fig. 7E, 111),
Park teaches the positively recited structure as claimed by Applicant"
(Ans. 4).
The Examiner has not established that Park's structure having a
grating etched into an electrode is the same or substantially the same as the
Appellants' structure having a grating deposited onto an electrode.
3
Appeal2014-006818
Application 13/223,351
The Examiner asserts that "another interpretation of fig. 7E of Park
could be one in which the buffer layer, 115, is the grating material deposited
onto the first electrode since it has the shape of a grating and is another
material deposited on to [sic] the electrode" (Ans. 4).
The Examiner has not established that merely because Park's optional
buffer layer (115) disposed on the first electrode (110) (i-f 54) appears to
have the shape of the grating ( 111) (Fig. 7E), it is capable of functioning as a
grating.
The Examiner asserts that "the deposition of these layers would also
inherently create some interfacial deposition of grating material that would
have been created through the photoresist process to create these layers"
(Ans. 4).
An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a
possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA
1981). The Examiner has not established that the removal of Park's
photoresist (112) inevitably leaves an interfacial photoresist deposit.
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient
to support a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants' claimed
invention. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A
rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these
facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art").
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Park
and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 6-15, 17-22 and 25
over Niggemann in view of Park, claims 3-5 and 23 over Niggemann in
4
Appeal2014-006818
Application 13/223,351
view of Park and Van Mol, claim 16 over Niggemann in view of Park and
Na and claim 24 over Niggemann in view of Park, Van Moland Na are
reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5