Ex Parte Heng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

12476991 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/476,991 0610212009 Jiunn Benjamin Heng
127668 7590 08/05/2016
Solart::ity c/o Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP
2800 Fifth Street, Suite 110
Davis, CA 95618
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.
P48-1NUS 6492
EXAMINER
DANICIC, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1758
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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
Ex parte JIUNN BENJAMIN HENG, CHENTAO YU,
ZHENG XU, JIANMING FU, and PEIJUN DING
Appeal2014-006181
Application 12/476,991
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-006181
Application 12/476,991
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 18-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
Appellants claim a double-sided heterojunction solar cell and a solar
cell module based on such solar cells. Claim 18 is illustrative (key
limitation in dispute italicized):
18. A double-sided heterojunction solar cell, comprising:
a frontside glass cover;
a semiconductor multilayer structure situated below the
frontside glass cover, comprising:
a frontside electrode grid,
a first layer of heavily doped amorphous Si (a-Si)
acting as an emitter layer situated below the frontside
electrode, and
a layer of lightly doped crystalline-Si ( c-Si) acting
as a base layer situated below the first layer of heavily
doped a-Si,
a second layer of heavily doped a-Si situated below the
multilayer structure, wherein the second heavily doped a-Si
layer and the lightly doped c-Si base layer have a same
conductive doping type;
a backside electrode situated below the second layer of
heavily doped a-Si;
a backside glass cover situated below the backside
electrode;
a frontside metal mesh situated between the frontside
glass cover and the semiconductor multilayer structure; and
a backside metal mesh situated between the backside
glass cover and the semiconductor multilayer structure,
wherein the backside metal mesh is arranged in such a way that
a solder tab of the backside metal mesh is in contact with a
solder tab of a second frontside metal mesh belonging to an
2
Appeal 2014-006181
Application 12/476,991
adjacent solar cell, thereby enabling a serial connection
between the solar cell and the adjacent solar cell.
Br. 16-17 (Claims App'x.). Claim 34, the only other independent claim
among the appealed claims, is directed to "[a] double-sided heterojunction
solar cell module" that further requires "a number of solar cells situated
between the frontside glass cover and the backside glass cover." Id. at 20-
21.
Dilts
Menezes
Hagino
Niira
Korevaar1
loge
Carlson
Drake
Stancel
The References
us 4,567 ,642
us 5,286,306
US 2004/0112426 Al
US 2005/0012095 Al
US 2005/0133084 Al
US 2006/0130891 Al
US 2008/0276983 Al
US 2008/0302030 Al
The Rejections
Feb.4, 1986
Feb. 15, 1994
June 1 7, 2004
Jan.20,2005
June 23, 2005
June 22, 2006
Nov. 13, 2008
Dec. 11, 2008
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 18-21, 29-32, 34--37, and 46-49 over Niira, Stancel, and Dilts;
claims 22 and 38 over Niira, Stancel, Dilts, and Hagino; claims 23-25, 39-
41, and 44 over Niira, Stancel, Dilts, and Drake; claims 26, 27, 42, and 43
over Niira, Stancel, Dilts, Drake, and Joge; claims 28 and 45 over Niira,
Stancel, Dilts, and Menezes; claims 31, 32, 48, and 49 over Niira, Stancel,
1 Korevaar is incorrectly identified in the Final Rejection, Answer, and
Appeal Brief as US 2005/0012095, which is Niira. Final Act. 15; Ans. 14;
Br. 7. The issues presented in this Appeal do not require us to consider
Korevaar.
3
Appeal 2014-006181
Application 12/476,991
Dilts, and Korevaar; claims 33 and 50 over Niira, Stancel, Dilts, and
Carlson. Br. 7; Ans. 2, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the independent
claims (18 and 34 ).
Claims 18 and 34 each require "a frontside metal mesh," "a backside
metal mesh," and "a solder tab of the backside metal mesh is in contact with
a solder tab of a second frontside metal mesh belonging to an adjacent solar
cell, thereby enabling a serial connection between the solar cell and the
adjacent solar cell." Br. 16-17, 20-21 (Claims App'x.).
The Examiner finds that the disclosure in Niira teaches the solar cell
of claims 18 and 34, respectively, except for the glass protective layers and
the front and back metal meshes and solder tabs enabling serial connection
between adjacent solar cells. Ans. 4--5. The Examiner also finds that it
would have been obvious to combine the glass protective layers of Stancel
with the solar cell and module ofNiira because Stancel discloses such layers
are to protect the photovoltaic device. Id. at 3--4 (citing Stancel i-fi-128, 73).
The Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious to modify the
solar cell(s) ofNiira as modified by Stancel to include the metal-fabric mesh
interconnector taught by Dilts "in order to allow for parallel or serial
connection between adjacent cells having the metal-fabric interconnector in
a module." Id. at 4 (citing Dilts 9:56-10:4). The Examiner additionally
finds that it would have been obvious in view of Stancel to further modify
the combination "with multiple photovoltaic multilayers in order to generate
4
Appeal 2014-006181
Application 12/476,991
sufficient current and voltage in solar module to power external loads." Id.
at 4--5 (citing Stancel i173).
Appellants contend that the Examiner's rejection is flawed because
there is nothing in Niira, Stancel, [sic] and Dilts, either expressly
or inherently, that discloses both a frontside metal mesh and a
backside metal mesh, and that the backside metal mesh is
arranged in such a way that a solder tab of the backside metal
mesh is in contact with a solder tab of the frontside metal mesh
belonging to an adjacent cell, thereby enabling a serial
connection between the solar cell and the adjacent solar cell.
Br. 11. Appellants also argue that "Dilts at most discloses metal meshes on
one side of the cell strip. Nowhere does Dilts disclose metal meshes on both
sides of the cell strip." Id. at 12. Regarding electrical connections to the
grid in Dilts, Appellants further contend that "Dilts merely discloses that
electrical interconnection is effected by applying a conductive epoxy or
other electrical connection at contact points 92, which can be at the mid-
point of conductive grid 93 disposed on cell strips 50." Id. at 12-13.
Appellants argue that electrical connection to a cell strip "is not the
same as having a solder tab of one metal mesh in contact with a solder tab of
a different metal mesh belonging to an adjacent solar cell." Id. at 13.
Finally, Appellants argue that the combination ofNiira and Dilts would
change the principle of operation of Dilts because Niira describes a rigid
crystalline c-Si substrate that would be "impossible to place" on the curved
surface of Dilts. Id. at 14.
The Examiner responds that
[i]t is true that Dilts only shows one, partially overlapping wire
mesh connector (Dilts Fig. 5). However, for a solar cell string,
each cell in the shown string of cells is connected on the front
5
Appeal 2014-006181
Application 12/476,991
surface at a front solder pad (#92) with a wire mesh (shown in
Dilts Fig. 5) and a bottom wire mesh connected at a bottom
solder pad (not shown) as demonstrated by Bachrach et al in US
Patent Application Publication 2006/0213548 (used to
demonstrate common serial solar cell string arrangement in the
solar art). This is a well-known cell arrangement which is
implicit in the teaching of Dilts acknowledgment of known series
and/or parallel interconnections (Dilts col 9 ln 58 - col 10 ln 4).
Ans. 18 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further responds to Appellants'
principle of operation argument that
[i]t would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that
the common technique of stringing together adjacent solar cells,
well known for rigid silicon solar cells such as those taught by
Bachrach (Bachrach [0007]) and shown in Drawing 1 (Bachrach
Fig. 1 B), can be performed using mesh electrodes on rigid cells
without a rotating drum.
Id. at 20 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner concedes that "Dilts only shows one, partially
overlapping wire mesh connector" and that the claimed cell arrangement and
structure is not expressly taught by Dilts. Id. at 18. The cited portion of
Dilts that the Examiner asserts implicitly teaches the claimed structure that
requires a backside metal mesh and solder tab to enable a serial connection
between adjacent cells states:
Fabrication of the photovoltaic module continues with the step
of electrically interconnecting together successive cell strips 50
by selectively connecting filament 90 of one cell strip
SO/interconnect mesh 36 combination to a next successive cell
strip 50, as would be known by one skilled in the art, thereby
effecting the desired series and/ or parallel interconnection for the
photovoltaic module.
Dilts 9:58-10:4. We agree with Appellants that interconnection of cell strips
where the cell strips connect a mesh on one side of the cell does not suggest
6
Appeal 2014-006181
Application 12/476,991
metal meshes on both sides of the cell for effecting a "desired series and/or
parallel interconnection for the photovoltaic module."
In the Answer, the Examiner also argues the teachings of Bachrach
(US 2006/0213548) in relation to claims 18-50. Ans. 18-20. However,
Bachrach was not relied upon in the final rejections of claims 18-50 that are
presently on appeal. See Ans. 2, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16. We therefore view the
reference to Bachrach, at pages 18-20 of the Answer, as an improper effort
to bring this reference in the "back door." See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341,
1342 n. 3 (CCPA 1970) (where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a "minor capacity," there would appear to be no
excuse for not positively including that reference in the statement of the
rejection.). Accordingly, we consider the rejection of claims 18 and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based solely on the evidence contained in Niira,
Stancel, and Dilts. We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 18 and 34
because the combination ofNiira, Stancel, and Dilts does not disclose or
suggest every element recited in the claims. Because claims 18 and 34 are
the only independent claims and the deficiencies of the combination of
Niira, Stancel, and Dilts are not remedied by the additional prior art cited by
the Examiner in the final rejection, we reverse the rejection of claims 17-33
and 35-50 for the same reason. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of
claims 18-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 18-50 are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7