Ex Parte Fu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

13220532 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/220,532 08/29/2011
127668 7590 08/16/2016
Solart::ity c/o Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP
2800 Fifth Street, Suite 110
Davis, CA 95618
JianmingFu
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.
P59-1NUS 1952
EXAMINER
MERSHON, JAYNE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1758
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
syadmin@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte JIANMING FU, ZHENG XU, CHENTAO YU, and
JIUNN BENJAMIN HENG
Appeal2015-002250
Application 13/220,532
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our decision below we refer to the Office Action appealed from, mailed
March 14, 2014 (Non-Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed August 13, 2014
(Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed September 25, 2014 (Ans.),
and the Reply Brief filed November 25, 2014 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Silevo, Inc. (previously
Sierra Solar Power, Inc.). Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002250
Application 13/220,532
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are directed to solar cell with electroplated metal grid.
Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A solar cell, comprising:
a semiconductor photovoltaic structure compnsmg an
emitter layer situated above a base layer; and
a front-side metal grid situated above the photovoltaic
structure, wherein the front-side metal grid includes a plurality
of metal layers, and wherein the plurality of metal layers includes
at least:
a metal-adhesive layer which comprises Ti or Ta
and is in direct contact with the emitter layer; and
an electroplated Cu layer situated above the metal-
adhesive layer;
wherein the metal-adhesive layer is formed using a
physical vapor deposition technique, thereby facilitating
adhesion of the electroplated Cu layer.
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 15.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections3:
A. Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimomura. 4 Non-Final Act. 5.
3 The Examiner also rejected claims 1--4 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 102 (b) as being
anticipated by Shimomura. Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner later withdrew
the anticipation rejection. Ans. 12.
4 Akihisa Shimomura, US 2009/0320897 Al, published December 31, 2009
(hereinafter "Shimomura").
2
Appeal2015-002250
Application 13/220,532
B. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimomura in view of Spitzer. 5
Id.
C. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimomura, in view of
Lindmayer6 as evidenced by Spitzer. Id. at 7.
D. Claims 9--12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimomura in view of
Lillington. 7 Id. at 8.
E. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shimomura and Lillington in view of
Weidman. 8 Id. at 11.
Appellants seek our review of Rejections A-E. Appellants present
argument directed to independent claim 1 and provide no additional
argument as to claims 2-13 separate from what is argued for claim 1.
Therefore, we focus our discussion below on claim 1 to resolve the issues on
appeal.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claim 1 (and claims depending therefrom) as
obvious in view of Shimomura. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Shimomura teaches all elements of claim 1. Id. at 5; Ans. 13. And, relevant
to the Appellants' arguments below, the Examiner finds that Shimomura
teaches a front-side metal grid, where the grid includes a plurality of layers
(or stacked structure), and where the plurality of layers includes a metal
5 Spitzer et al., US 5, 07 5, 7 63, issued December 24, 1991.
6 Joseph Lindmayer, US 4,124,455, issued November 7, 1978.
7 Lillington et al., US 4,694,115, issued September 15, 1987.
8 Weidman et al., US 2010/0015756 Al, published January 21, 2010.
3
Appeal2015-002250
Application 13/220,532
layer and a barrier layer, or metal adhesive layer, which comprises Ti or Ta.
Non-Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 14--15. The Examiner also concludes that while
Shimomura does not provide a specific example using copper,
it would have been obvious to utilize copper since Shimomura
teaches that copper is one of the materials that can be chosen to
be utilized as the electrode material ([0099]) and ... the selection
of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the
intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Id. at 5; Ans. 15.
Appellants argue that Shimomura fails to "disclose[] a multi-layer
front metal layer grid that includes a metal adhesive layer, and that the metal
adhesive layer includes Ti or Ta." Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellants urge that
the 114/146 structure identified by the Examiner is not on the front-side
electrical grid of a solar cell. Id. at 12. Appellants explain that
layer 114 is the back-side sheet electrode, which 1s
fundamentally different from a metal adhesive layer belonging
to a front-side grid electrode. In fact, layer 114 neither serves as
an adhesive layer nor being part a grid. Moreover, layer 146 is
the connecting electrode that connects the back-side electrode of
one solar cell to the front-side electrode of an adjacent solar cell.
Id. at 12-13. Appellants also urge that nothing in Shimomura teaches that
114 has a grid structure. Reply Br. 8. Appellants acknowledge that side
electrode 146, that serially connects cells together, has a grid-like structure
but argue "such a configuration is not the same as the front-side metal grid
that includes a plurality of metal layers as recited in claim 1 of the instant
application." Id. at 9. Appellants also contend that the Examiner incorrectly
interprets Shimomura as having light enter the substrate side of the electrode
such that 114 is the front electrode. Rather, paragraph 59, according to
4
Appeal2015-002250
Application 13/220,532
Appellants, "merely discloses that there is no limitation over the base
substrate and that if the light enters from the side of the base substrate, the
substrate should be transparent." Reply Br. 9--10. Appellants also explain
that the Shimomura device would not work as the Examiner suggests
"because electrode layer 114 covers majority of the bottom side of the
device and thus would obstruct most of the light entering substrate 110, thus
defeating the purpose of the solar cell," therefore "teach[ing] [away] from
using layer 114 in its device as a 'front-side metal grid."' Id. at 10.
We find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner. As the Examiner finds (Ans. 16), Shimomura teaches different
embodiments, including one embodiment where the light enters from the
substrate side of the photovoltaic structure. Shimomura i-f 59. Specifically,
Shimomura states:
In addition, when light enters from the base substrate 110 side, a
substrate having a light-transmitting property is used.
Concretely, a variety of glass substrates used for electronic
industries (e.g. aluminosilicate glass, aluminoborosilicate glass,
or barium borosilicate glass), a quartz substrate, a ceramic
substrate, or a sapphire substrate can be given as an example.
Id. (emphasis added). In this embodiment, the substrate side of the structure
is the front side. Id. Shimomura teaches the front-side metal grid includes a
plurality of metal layers including a metal layer that may be copper, among
other materials, and a barrier layer that can include tantalum nitride or
titanium nitride. Id. at i-f 99. Shimomura also explains that this nitride layer,
i.e., tantalum nitride or titanium nitride, is "between the metal layer (e.g., an
aluminum layer [or copper layer]) and the single-crystal semiconductor
substrate can improve adhesion between the single-crystal semiconductor
substrate and the first electrode 114." Id. (emphasis added). This metal
5
Appeal2015-002250
Application 13/220,532
adhesive layer, or barrier layer of Shimomura, is in direct contact with the
first impurity semiconductor layer 122n+, or emitter layer. Id. i-f 99 and
Figs. 2 and 4A--4B.
Appellants' argument that the Shimomura device would not work if
light enters from the substrate side of the structure because the first electrode
114 covers the majority of the device thus obstructing light entering the
device is unavailing. Reply Br. 10. This argument is in conflict with the
express teachings of Shimomura which explains that "when light enters from
the base substrate 110 side, a substrate having a light-transmitting property
is used." Shimomura i-f 59 (emphasis added). Thus, Shimomura
contemplates light being transmitted through the substrate. Nothing in
Shimomura requires that the first electrode 114 is a solid obstruction, as
opposed to grid-like structure, as suggested by Appellants. In fact,
Shimomura teaches that the electrodes-including the connecting electrode
146, auxiliary electrode 144, and the first electrode 114---are each formed by
the same process, i.e., a screen printing method. Id. at i-fi-1158-159. And,
both auxiliary electrode 144 and connecting electrode 146 have a grid
structure. Shimomura i-fi-1 60 and 155-156; Reply Br. 8 ("connecting
electrode 146 (which is a grid)"). Moreover, and as Appellants note (Reply
Br. 10), the skilled artisan at the time would have understood that with light
entering the substrate side of the structure, a first electrode that obstructs the
transmission of light into the cell would defeat the purpose of the solar cell.
Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner committed
reversible error in rejecting claims 1-13 as obvious.
6
Appeal2015-002250
Application 13/220,532
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not reversibly err in rejecting claims 1-13.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
7