Ex Parte Loscutoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

13718518 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131718,518 12/18/2012
149776 7590 06/26/2018
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt/SunPower
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 SW FIFTH A VENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Loscutoff
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.
131815-228328 3403
EXAMINER
HORTON, DUJUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
ghoover@schwabe.com
mscardina@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL LOSCUTOFF
and PETER J. COUSINS
Appeal2017-008507
Application 13/718,518 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
1 The real party in interest is said to be SunPower Corporation. Appeal Brief dated
November 29, 2016 ("App. Br."), at 3.
Appeal2017-008507
Application 13/718,518
1. A method of fabricating an emitter region of a solar cell, the
method comprising:
forming a plurality of regions ofN-type doped silicon nano-
particles on a first surface of a substrate of the solar cell;
forming a P-type dopant-containing layer on the plurality of
regions ofN-type doped silicon nano-particles and on the first surface
of the substrate between the regions ofN-type doped silicon nano-
particles;
subsequent to forming the P-type dopant-containing layer,
heating the substrate to diffuse N-type dopants from the regions of N-
type doped silicon nano-particles and form corresponding N-type
diffusion regions in the substrate, and to diffuse P-type dopants from
the P-type dopant-containing layer and form corresponding P-type
diffusion regions in the substrate, between the N-type diffusion
reg10ns;
forming a capping layer on the P-type dopant-containing layer;
forming an etch resistant layer on the capping layer; and
etching a second surface of the substrate, opposite the first
surface, to texturize the second surface of the substrate, wherein the
etch resistant layer protects the capping layer and the P-type dopant-
containing layer during the etching.
App. Br. 14.
The following rejections are maintained on appeal:
(1) claims 1, 3---6, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Smith et al. 2 in view of Borden et al. 3 and Swanson; 4
(2) claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view
of Borden and Swanson, and further in view of Abbott et al.; 5 and
2 US 6,998,288 Bl, issued February 14, 2006 ("Smith").
3 US 2009/0314341 Al, published December 24, 2009 ("Borden").
4 US 2008/0121279 Al, published May 29, 2008 ("Swanson").
5 US 2010/0275982 Al, published November 4, 2010 ("Abbott").
2
Appeal2017-008507
Application 13/718,518
(3) claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith
in view of Borden and Swanson, and further in view of Bonner et al. 6
The Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 1 and 13 as a
group. Moreover, the Appellants do not present arguments in support of the
separate patentability of any of dependent claims 3-12 and 15-20. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, claims 3-13 and 15-20 stand or fall with the patentability
of claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv) (2016).
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Smith discloses a method of fabricating an emitter
region of a solar cell comprising, inter alia, the steps of (1) forming a plurality of
regions of P-type doped silicon dioxide on a substrate surface, (3) forming an N-
type dopant-containing layer on the plurality of regions of P-type doped silicon
dioxide and on the substrate surface between the regions of P-type doped silicon
dioxide, and (3) subsequently heating the substrate to diffuse P- and N-type
dopants from the respective regions and layer, thereby forming corresponding P-
and N-type diffusion regions in the substrate. Ans. 2-3. 7
The Examiner finds Smith does not disclose that the plurality of regions are
an N-type and the overlying dopant-containing layer is a P-type as recited in claim
1. Ans. 3. The Examiner, however, finds Borden discloses a solar cell analogous
to Smith's solar cell, "wherein the substrate can be either n-type or p-type and the
doping layers are reversed." Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes, and the Appellants
do not dispute, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
form the N-type wafer of Smith as a P-type wafer, wherein the plurality of regions
6 US 2008/0314443 Al, published December 25, 2008 ("Bonner").
7 Examiner's Answer dated March 21, 2017.
3
Appeal2017-008507
Application 13/718,518
are an N-type and the overlying dopant-containing layer is a P-type as recited in
claim 1. Ans. 3.
The Examiner also finds Smith does not disclose, in the modified solar cell,
that the N-type doped silicon dioxide regions are composed of nano-particles.
Ans. 3. The Examiner, however, finds Swanson discloses a solar cell analogous to
Smith's solar cell wherein the N-type emitter layer comprises N-type doped silicon
nano-particles. Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art "to substitute then-type silicon layer of Smith
with then-type nano[-]particles of Swanson." Ans. 3.
The Appellants recognize that Swanson discloses p-emitters and n-emitters
composed of nano-particle silicon but argues that Swanson does not use the nano-
particle silicon p-emitters and n-emitters to diffuse dopants into an underlying
substrate as recited in the claims on appeal. App. Br. 10. Therefore, the
Appellants argue that "none of Smith, Swanson or Borden, taken individually or in
combination, discloses at least, 'heating the substrate to diffuse N-type dopants
from the regions of N-type doped silicon nano-particles and form corresponding
N-type diffusion regions in the substrate' [as claimed]." App. Br. 10.
The Appellants' argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art). In the rejection on appeal, the Examiner relies on Smith to show the
step of heating a substrate to form P- and N-type diffusion regions in the substrate.
Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Swanson to show that N-type doped silicon nano-
particles were known in the art at the time of the Appellants' invention. Thus, in
the modification proposed by the Examiner, the Examiner merely substitutes the
N-type doped silicon dioxide regions in Smith's modified solar cell with the N-
4
Appeal2017-008507
Application 13/718,518
type doped silicon nano-particles disclosed in Swanson. See Ans. 10. Notably, the
Appellants do not direct us to any evidence establishing that one of ordinary skill
would not have expected N-type dopants from the N-type doped silicon nano-
particles disclosed in Swanson to successfully diffuse and form corresponding N-
type diffusion regions in Smith's substrate under the conditions disclosed in Smith.
The§ 103(a) rejections on appeal are sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
5