Ex Parte Cornfeld

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

13954610 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)

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.
13/954,610 07/30/2013 Arthur Cornfeld B006 7985
128940 7590 09/20/2017
Sol Aero Technologies Corp.
10420 Research Road SE
Albuquerque, NM 87123
EXAMINER
LUKE, DANIEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTHUR CORNFELD
Appeal 2016-007125
Application 13/954,610
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007125
Application 13/954,610
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1—3 and 6—14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to semiconductor devices such as
multijunction solar cells based on III-V semiconductor compounds including
a metamorphic layer (i.e., metamorphic multijunction solar cells). (Spec.
136).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of manufacturing a solar cell comprising:
providing a first substrate;
forming an upper first solar subcell having a first band
gap on said first substrate;
forming a second solar subcell adjacent to said first solar
subcell and having a second band gap smaller than said first
band gap;
forming a first graded interlayer adjacent to said second
solar subcell, said first graded interlayer having a third band
gap greater than said second band gap;
forming a third solar subcell adjacent to said first graded
interlayer, said third subcell having a fourth band gap smaller
than said second band gap such that said third subcell is lattice
mismatched with respect to said second subcell;
forming a second graded interlayer adjacent to said third
solar subcell, said second graded interlayer having a fifth band
gap greater than said fourth band gap;
forming a lower fourth solar subcell adjacent to said
second graded interlayer, said lower subcell having a sixth band
gap smaller than said fourth band gap such that said fourth
subcell is lattice mismatched with respect to said third subcell;
mounting a surrogate substrate on top of said fourth solar
sub cell;
removing the first substrate;
2
Appeal 2016-007125
Application 13/954,610
passivating an exposed surface of the solar cell with a
passivating solution;
depositing an encapsulating layer over the passivated
surface by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition
immediately after the passivating step; and
depositing an anti-reflection coating layer over the
encapsulating layer.
Appellant appeals the following rejections1:
1. Claims 1—3 and 6—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Newman (US 2010/0229926 Al, pub. Sept. 16,
2010) in view of Lai {Performance Improvement of (NH4)2SX-Treated
III—V Compounds Multijunction Solar Cell Using Surface Treatment,
155 (12) J. Electrochem. Soc. B1270-B1273 (2008)).
2. Claims 1—3 and 6—14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and
6—18 of copending Application No. 13/954756 in view of Newman
and Pan (US 2010/0186822 Al, pub. July 29, 2010).
3. Claims 1—3 and 6—14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1—14,
6—14, and 16—19 of copending Application No. 13/964774 in view of
Newman and Junghanel (US 2012/0318347 Al, pub. Dec. 20, 2012).
Appellant does not argue the merits of the provisional double patenting
rejections other than to state that if the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejections are the only rejections left pending in this appeal after
Board review, the Examiner should pass this application to issue pursuant to
1 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112,11, rejection for lack of
written description of claim 1. (Ans. 2).
3
Appeal 2016-007125
Application 13/954,610
the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §822.01 (App. Br. 11—12).
Because we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection, we summarily affirm the
obviousness-type double patenting rejections. Ex parte Jerg, 2012 WL
1375142, *3 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Panels have the flexibility to
reach or not reach provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejections.
See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010)”).
Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1 only (Br. 5-10).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANAFYSIS
The Examiner finds that Newman teaches all the limitations of claim
1, except for passivating the exposed surface of the solar cell with a
passivating solution and forming an encapsulating layer over the passivated
surface by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) immediately after the
passivating step, where the antireflection coating (ARC) is deposited on the
encapsulating layer (Final Act. 4—6). With regard to the step of passivating
the exposed surface of the solar cell, the Examiner finds that Fai teaches
etching to expose a window layer in a solar cell, which the Examiner finds to
be similar to Newman’s Figure 12 (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that
Newman’s Figure 12 shows that contact layer 104 has been etched in
regions other than where the ohmic contact 501 is formed to expose the
window layer 105. Id. The Examiner finds that Fai teaches to dip the solar
cell in an ammonium sulfide solution, followed immediately by the
deposition of TiCC/SiCF ARC layer. (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that
the titanium dioxide may be considered an encapsulating layer. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to passivate the
window layer of Newman according to the technique taught by Fai in order
4
Appeal 2016-007125
Application 13/954,610
to reduce surface states, which reduces the loss of photoinduced carriers,
thereby improving efficiency (Final Act. 7).
Appellant argues that Lai is directed to tandem-type III-V compound
multijunction solar cells which differ from the materials used in the layers of
Newman’s inverted metamorphic multijunction (IMM) solar cell (App. Br.
7—9). Appellant contends that the IMM solar cell includes graded interlayers
and InGaAlAS layers which are not used in Lai’s solar cell (App. Br. 9).
Appellant argues that the different compositions and complexity of structure
would not have suggested that passivating Newman’s IMM solar cell with
Lai’s passivating solution would have yielded a functional solar cell (App.
Br. 9).
Claim 1 recites in relevant part:
mounting a surrogate substrate on top of said fourth solar cell;
removing the first substrate;
passivating an exposed surface of the solar cell with a passivating
solution ....
Claim 1 requires that after forming four solar cells and graded layers,
attaching a surrogate substrate to the fourth solar cell and removing the
substrate used as the initial substrate (i.e., first substrate) on which the four
solar cells and graded layers are formed. An exposed surface of the solar
cell formed by removing the first substrate is then passivated with a
passivating solution and then immediately encapsulated. The claim does not
require exposing any particular layer or layers of the solar cell.
With this claim construction in mind, the Examiner has shown that the
combined teachings of Newman and Lai would have suggested passivating
an exposed surface of the solar cell. The Examiner’s rejection is based upon
using Lai’s teaching to passivate the “window layer” in order to passivate
5
Appeal 2016-007125
Application 13/954,610
the exposed window layer 105 shown in Newman’s Figure 12. (Final Act.
8). Newman exposes window layer 12 by removing the substrate 101 and
then etching the contact layer 104 and etch stop layer 103 to expose the
window layer 105 (Figs. 8A to 12). Appellant contends that the layers in
Newman’s IMM differ materially and structurally from the layers in Lai’s
solar cell. The Examiner responds that the composition of the internal layers
are not important because the passivation at the window layer taught by Lai
would occur irrespective of the composition of the internal layers (Ans. 3—
4). The Examiner also finds that Lai and Newman use the same material
(AllnP) for the window layer (Ans. 3-4). Claim 1 requires passivating an
exposed surface of the solar cell, which we construe to include any layer of
the solar cell, such as the window layer. Lai teaches that passivating the
window layer reduces surface states, which reduces the loss of photoinduced
carriers and thereby improve efficiency (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds
that Lai also teaches immediately encapsulating the passivated surface of the
window layer (Final Act. 6). In light of Lai’s teachings, it would have been
obvious to passivate and encapsulate Newman’s window layer 105 that is
exposed as shown in Newman’s Figure 12. Appellant’s arguments regarding
the different materials used in IMM solar cells are not germane as these
layers are not exposed during the encapsulation step.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over
Newman in view of Lai.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed
6
Appeal 2016-007125
Application 13/954,610
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
7