Ex Parte NESE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

14268640 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/268,640 05/02/2014
2292 7590 07/06/2018
BIRCH STEW ART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22042-1248
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MartinNESE
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.
1380-0262PUS3 8739
EXAMINER
MUNOZ, ANDRES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN NESE, ERIK SAUAR, ANDREAS BENTZEN, and
PAUL ALAN BASORE
Appeal2016-005878
Application 14/268,640
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed May 2, 2014 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2015 ("Final
Act."); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 26, 2015 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer
dated March 17, 2016 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed May 16, 2016 ("Reply
Br.").
Appeal 2016-005878
Application 14/268,640
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The invention relates to cost-effective, highly-efficient, silicon-based
solar panels. Spec. 1 :28-29. An exemplary embodiment of the inventive
solar panel is shown and described in connection with Figure 5, reproduced
below.
Figure 5, above, is a side, sectional view of a solar panel. Spec.
10:23-24. As shown in Figure 5, semi-finished solar cells (i.e., wafers 100
having surface passivation film 103 deposited on their front sides and doped
regions 101, 102 in their back sides) are positioned side-by-side such that
their front sides are attached to the back side of front glass 104 by glue layer
105. Id. at 13:14--16, 14:36-15:2, 15:8-9. Metal layer 106, deposited over
the back sides of the semi-finished solar cells and back side of front glass
104, forms the electric contacts on each cell and the interconnects between
adjacent cells of the solar panel. Id. at 14: 15-17, 15:21-26.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as REC SOLAR PTE.
LTD. Appeal Br. 1.
2
Appeal 2016-005878
Application 14/268,640
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative of the
claimed invention, and is reproduced below.
1. Solar panel/module comprising:
- a transparent front glass,
- a number of semiconductor wafers which each are processed
to form semi-finished solar cells, and which are attached
adjacent to each other onto the back side of the transparent front
glass,
and
- electric contacts of the solar cells and interconnects
connecting adjacent solar cells of the solar panel/module,
- where the electric contacts of the solar cells and the
interconnects connecting adjacent solar cells of the solar
panel/module are formed by one patterned layer covering the
back side of the front glass including the back side of the
attached semi-finished solar cells.
Appeal Br. 12.
The claims stand finally rejected as follows:
1. claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
Jawarani (US 2009/0159111 Al, published June 25, 2009);
2. claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Jawarani and Hanak (US 4,292,092, issued Sept. 29, 1981); and
3. claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jawarani and
Basol (US 2008/0196756 Al, published Aug. 21, 2008).
Appellants contend the Examiner failed to show unpatentability of the
appealed claims by a preponderance of the evidence, identifying several
alleged deficiencies in the Examiner's rejections. See generally, Appeal Br.
5-8. As discussed in detail below, we are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Jawarani discloses a
3
Appeal 2016-005878
Application 14/268,640
solar panel/module comprising "semi-finished solar cells ... attached
adjacent to each other onto the back side of [a] transparent front glass"
"where the electric contacts of the solar cells and the interconnects
connecting adjacent solar cells of the solar panel/module are formed by one
patterned layer covering the back side of the front glass," as recited in claim
1. We agree with Appellants that the rejections of dependent claims 2-7
likewise are based on this erroneous finding. See Appeal Br. 8-11; Final
Act. 3---6. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1-7.
Figure 22 of Jawarani is reproduced below:
Jawarani Figure 22, above, is a side view of a solar module. See Jawarani
i-f 59. Figure 22 illustrates glass substrate 352 and cells 350 having metal
film 354 disposed therebetween. Id. i-fi-155-56. Metal film 354 is etched to
form individual back contacts for cells 350. Id. i-f 56. Metal contacts 358
deposited over the structure join individual cells 350 in series. Id. i-f 58. An
Si02 film and an anti-reflection coating ("ARC") film (collectively element
360) is deposited over cells 350 and glass substrate 352 on the front surface
to increase absorption of incident radiation. Id. n 52, 59.
The Examiner finds the claim 1 recitation "one patterned layer
covering the back side of the front glass including the back side of the
attached semi-finished solar cells" reads on J awarani' s disclosure of metal
contacts 358 deposited over glass substrate 352 and cells 350. Final Act. 3.
4
Appeal 2016-005878
Application 14/268,640
Appellants argue glass substrate 352 is located at the back of
Jawarani's solar module and, therefore, is not "a transparent front glass" as
claimed. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants argue cells 350 are attached to the front
side of glass substrate 352, and that metal contacts 358 cover the front side
of glass substrate 352 and the front sides of the attached semi-finished solar
cells rather than the back sides as required by the claims. See id. at 6-7.
The Examiner, in response, argues Jawarani's "glass substrate 352
may be considered to be a front substrate or a back substrate of the module,
depending on the orientation of the device. Other than orientation, the claim
does not recite any particular limitations of the term 'front glass."' Ans. 9.
The Examiner likewise contends the "'back sides' of solar cells 350 may be
interpreted as either the top surfaces or bottom surfaces of the solar cells,
depending on the orientation of the device to an arbitrary observer since the
claim does not recite any particular limitations of the term 'back side."' Id.
at 7.
Appellants argue the Examiner's contentions are based on an overly
broad interpretation of claim 1. See Reply Br. 5-7. Appellants direct us to
page 6, lines 16-22 of the Specification (id. at 6) wherein the terms "front
side" and "back side" are defined explicitly as follows:
As used herein, the term "front side" denotes the side of the
wafer that is facing the sun when the solar panel is in operation.
The term "back side" is the opposite side of the front side of the
wafer . . . . When applied for the front glass, the term "front
side" means the side of the transparent front glass that will face
the sun when the solar panel is in operation, and the term "back
side" means the opposite side which receives the wafers and
then the deposited metal layer(s).
5
Appeal 2016-005878
Application 14/268,640
Spec. 6:16-22. The Specification further states that "[t]he term 'front glass'
as used herein means any type of transparent material that may form the
front plate of the finished solar panel/module." Id. at 6:30-31.
"During ... examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification." In re ICON
Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
may define the specific terms used to describe the invention, provided "this
[is] done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "Where an inventor chooses
to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon meanings, he must
set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure
so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change." Id.
(internal quotations omitted).
We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the above-quoted language on page 6 of the Specification as
providing explicit definitions for the claim 1 phrases "back side of the front
glass" and "back side of the attached semi-finished solar cells." See Reply
Br. 5---6. We determine that the language of claim 1, given its broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification, requires a particular
arrangement wherein the electric contacts of the solar cells and the
interconnects connecting adjacent solar cells are formed on a surface of the
solar module that is opposite the surface designed to absorb incident
radiation from the sun. See id. We further agree with Appellants that metal
contacts 358, glass substrate 352, and cells 350 of Jawarani's solar module
are not arranged as recited in claim 1. See id. As explained by Appellants
(see id. at 6), Jawarani discloses that the surface of the module designed to
6
Appeal 2016-005878
Application 14/268,640
absorb incident radiation is the surface coated by the passivating and ARC
films (element 360 in Figure 22). Jawarani i-fi-152, 59. Thus, metal contacts
358 are located on the side of Jawarani's solar module, including glass
substrate 352, designed for absorbing incident radiation, i.e., the front side.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
Jawarani discloses a solar module comprising "semi-finished solar cells ...
attached adjacent to each other onto the back side of [a] transparent front
glass" "where the electric contacts of the solar cells and the interconnects
connecting adjacent solar cells of the solar panel/module are formed by one
patterned layer covering the back side of the front glass," as recited in claim
1 (emphasis added).
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Jawarani. See Net
MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
("[U]nless a reference discloses within the four comers of the document not
only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or
combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove
prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 3 5
U.S.C. § 102."). Because the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 6, and 7
likewise are based on the unsupported findings of fact discussed above in
connection with the anticipation rejection, we also do not sustain the
rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7