Ex Parte CHIU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 2018

14490423 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/490,423 09/18/2014
120226 7590 07/11/2018
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philip CHIU
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.
BOC0/0066US (069148) 3633
EXAMINER
MARTIN, BETHANY LAMBRIGHT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2018 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte PHILIP CHIU, PETER HEBERT,
and DHANANJA Y BHUSARI
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
Technology Center 1700
Before RAEL YNN P. GUEST, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-12, 16, and 21-24. 2,3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed September 18, 2014
("Spec."); the Final Office Action dated September 12, 2016 ("Final Act.");
the Appeal Brief filed December 22, 2016 ("Appeal Br."); the Examiner's
Answer dated April 19, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed
June 15, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, The Boeing Company, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 There is a discrepancy in the record with respect to the claims presented for
review on appeal. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-12, 15, 16, and 21-24
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
The subject matter on appeal relates to antireflective coatings for solar
cells. Spec. ,r 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief with emphasis added to highlight disputed
limitations, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. An antireflective coating, comprising:
a first layer comprising titanium dioxide and having a first
index of refraction within a range of about 2.3 to about 2.7;
an intermediate layer comprising titanium dioxide
disposed on the first layer, the intermediate layer having an
index of refraction and a density less than the first layer;
a second layer disposed on the intermediate layer, the
second layer having an index of refraction less than the
intermediate layer and within a range of about 1.8 to about 2.1;
and
a third layer disposed on the second layer, the third layer
having an index of refraction within a range of about 1.6 to
about 1.8.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
Independent claim 11 is directed to a solar cell comprising the same
antireflective coating as recited in claim 1.
over prior art. See generally Final Act. As indicated by Appellant, claim 15
was previously cancelled. App. Br. 1. Although Appellant appears to only
appeal claims 1, 5, 8, 11, and 21-24 (id.), Appellant also indicates that
arguments presented for claims 1 and 11 are relied upon to address the
rejections of claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 21, and22 (id. at 11). Thus, we
determine that Appellant's intent is to appeal the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1, 5-12, 16, and 21-24. With respect to the Examiner's
inclusion of cancelled claim 15 in the rejection statement, we find this to be
a harmless error given Appellant's acknowledgement noted above. Id. at 1.
Accordingly, claim 15 is not before us for review on appeal and the
appropriate rejection statement has been modified to reflect its cancellation.
2
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Daniel J. Aiken, High performance
anti-reflection coatings for broadband multi-junction solar cells, 64 Solar
Energy Materials & Solar Cells 393--404 (2000) ("Aiken") in view of
Chhajed et al., Nanostructured multilayer graded index antireflection
coating for Si solar cells with broadband and omnidirectional
characteristics," 93 Applied Physics Letters 251108-1-3 (2008)
("Schubert"4), Kalyankar et al. (US 2014/0170308 Al, published June 19,
2014) ("Kalyankar '308"), and Kalyankar et al. (US 2014/0004334 Al,
published January 2, 2014) ("Kalyankar '334"). Ans. 3-15. The Examiner
also maintains the rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 21-24 over
Aiken, Schubert, Kalyankar '308, and Kalyankar '334, and in view of
various additional references. Id. at 15-29. Because Appellant does not
present arguments pertaining to the additional references, we do not discuss
them herein.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by the Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence
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")). After consideration
of the evidence on this record and each of Appellant's contentions, we find
4 Appellant and the Examiner refer to this reference as "Schubert," the
second named author of the reference. To avoid confusion, and to be
consistent with the record, we will also refer to this reference by its second
named author.
3
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's conclusions that
the subject matter of Appellant's claims is unpatentable over the applied
prior art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections for
substantially the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action, Answer, and below.
Appellant's arguments focus on independent claims 1 and 11.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for patentability of
independent claim 24 or dependent claims 5-10, 12, 16, and 21-23. We
select independent claim 1 as representative, and claims 5-12, 16, and 21-23
will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Aiken's Figures 3 and 4
disclose a solar cell that includes an anti-reflective coating with a first layer
having an optimum refractive index of approximately 2.65 (nH)
( corresponding to claim 1 and claim 11 's "a first layer having a first index of
refraction within a range of about 2.3 to about 2.7"). Final Act. 5, 11. The
Examiner also finds that Aiken's Figures 3 and 4 disclose a second layer
stacked on the first layer having an optimum refractive index of
approximately 2.1 (nM) ( corresponding to the claimed "a second layer, the
second layer having an index of refraction within a range of about 1. 8 to
about 2.1 "), and a third layer stacked on the second layer having an optimum
refractive index of approximately 1. 7 ( nL) ( corresponding to the claimed "a
third layer disposed on the second layer, the third layer having an index of
refraction within a range of about 1.6 to about 1.8"). Id. at 6.
The Examiner relies on Schubert for the material for the first layer of
the anti-reflective coating. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner finds that
Schubert teaches that it is well-known to employ a first layer of titanium
4
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
oxide with a refractive index of 2.66 as the base layer in a multilayer
antireflective coating. Schubert 251108-2, Fig. 3; see also Final Act. 5---6.
The Examiner finds that one having ordinary skill in the art would be led to
use Schubert's titanium oxide material to form the first layer of Aiken's anti-
reflective coating because the titanium oxide material exhibits the desired
refractive index for the ideal first layer of Aiken's anti-reflective coating.
Final Act. 6.
The Examiner relies on Kalyankar '308 for a teaching regarding an
intermediate layer disposed between a first and second layer of an anti-
reflective coating. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that Kalyankar '308
teaches using a grading process on its anti-reflective coating to cause and/or
enhance diffusion of the material of the second anti-reflective layer into the
material of the first anti-reflective layer, resulting in an intermediate
sublayer disposed between the first and second layer, where the intermediate
layer has a refractive index less than the first layer. See id. ( citing
Kalyankar '308, ,r,r 24--27, and Fig. 6). The Examiner finds that
Kalyankar '308 teaches that such a graded structure results in a smoother
transition between anti-reflective layers, improving anti-reflective
properties. Id.
The Examiner relies on Kalyankar '334 for teaching an intermediate
layer, disposed on a first layer, and having a density less than the first layer.
Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that Kalyankar '334 teaches varying the
porosity and index of refraction of the layers of a multilayer anti-reflective
coating in a graded fashion to improve the anti-reflective property of the
coated layers. Final Act. 8 (citing Kalyankar '334, ,r 48).
5
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
Based on the teachings of Kalyankar '308, and Kalyankar '334, the
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Aiken's triple layer anti-
reflective coating, as modified by Schubert, to include an intermediate
sublayer between the first and second layers ( the intermediate layer disposed
on the first layer, and the second layer disposed on the intermediate layer)
that has a refractive index and porosity slightly less than the first layer, as
taught by Kalyankar '308 and Kalyankar '334, to achieve a smoother
transition between layers and improve antireflective properties. See Final
Act. 7-10.
Appellant argues that Kalyankar '334 does not provide an example of
a porous titanium oxide layer having an index of refraction above 1.3. Reply
Br. 2; Appeal Br. 8. Therefore, Appellant argues that any assertion that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to apply Kalyankar '334's
porosity scheme to Aiken to form a porous titanium oxide layer having a
refractive index greater than 1.3 is "purely unsupported speculation by the
Examiner." Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
they do not address the Examiner's findings regarding Kalyankar '334 or the
Examiner's reasoning for modifying Aiken's anti-reflective coating based on
Kalyankar '334's teachings. As the Examiner explains, Kalyankar '334 is
not relied upon for teaching the refractive index of an intermediate layer
disposed between first and second layers. Ans. 29. Nor does the Examiner
rely on Kalyankar 334's disclosure of a titanium dioxide having a refractive
index of 1.3. See Ans. 29; see also Final Act. 8-9.
6
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
As discussed above, the Examiner relies upon Kalyankar '308 for
teaching a process of grading a multi-layer anti-reflective coating that causes
and/or enhances diffusion of the material of the second anti-reflective layer
into the material of the first anti-reflective to produce an intermediate layer
with a refractive index layer between the two layers. Ans. 29--30; see also
Kalyankar '308, ,r,r 24--27. The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not
dispute, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led, based on
Kalyankar '308, to grade the first and second layers of Aiken's triple layer
anti-reflective coating, as modified by Schubert, to form an intermediate
sublayer between the first and second layers ( the intermediate layer disposed
on the first layer, and the second layer disposed on the intermediate layer)
that has a refractive index less than the first layer "to achieve a smoother
transition between layers and improve anti[-]reflective properties."
Compare Final Act. 7, and Ans. 30, with Appeal Br. 7-9. In other words,
Aiken's triple layer anti-reflective coating, as modified by Schubert and
Kalyankar '308, would have included a first layer comprising titanium
dioxide having a first index of refraction of approximately 2.65, a second
layer having an index of refraction of approximately 2 .1, and an intermediate
layer comprising titanium dioxide having a graded index of refraction
between 2.1 and 2.65.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that
Kalyankar '334 teaches an alternative method for grading a multi-layer anti-
reflective coating that introduces air into a material (specifically titanium
dioxide) so as to increase porosity and decrease refractive index of the layers
of a multi-layer anti-reflective coating, and improve the anti-reflective
properties of the coated layers. Compare Final Act. 8-9 ( citing Kalyankar
7
Appeal2017-009316
Application 14/490,423
'334, ,r 48), and Ans. 30-31, with Appeal Br. 7-9. Further, Appellant has
not identified reversible error in the Examiner's determination that it would
have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use
Kalyankar '334's porosity method to form the layers of Aiken's anti-
reflective coating, as modified by Schubert and Kalyankar '308, with
varying porosity and refractive indices to improve the anti-reflective
properties of the multi-layer anti-reflective coating of Aiken. Id.
Appellant argues that even if a porous titanium oxide layer having the
asserted refractive index could be formed as asserted by the Examiner, there
is no teaching or suggestion in any reference that such a layer is suitable in
an anti-reflective stack. Id.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because Kalyankar '334
teaches using a porous titanium oxide layer in a multi-layer anti-reflective
coating. Kalyankar '334, ,r 48.
Because Appellant's arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 5-12, 16, and
21-24.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1, 5-12, 16, and 21-24
are 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).
AFFIRMED
8