The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020003655 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2021)

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.
14/860,214 09/21/2015 Philip T. Chiu 15-0828-US-NP 3308
155028 7590 07/01/2021
Vivacqua Crane
3101 East Eisenhower Parkway
ANN ARBOR, MI 48108
EXAMINER
TRINH, THANH TRUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
BoeingUSPTO@vivacqualaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte PHILIP T. CHIU,
MORAN HADDAD,
and RICHARD R. KING
__________

Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–4, 6, and 7.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
Appeal Brief dated December 9, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 3.
2 Claims 8–20 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

2

The claims on appeal are directed to a tunnel junction or “p-n junction” for a
semiconductor device. See Spec. ¶ 16 (disclosing that a tunnel junction “may be
referred to as a p-n junction”). Appellant’s Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates
a semiconductor device and in particular, an indium phosphide (InP)-based dual
junction solar cell that includes p-n junction 26. Spec. ¶ 16.

Appellant’s Figure 1 depicts an exemplary semiconductor
device including the disclosed tunnel junction.
The Appellant discloses that the semiconductor device illustrated in Figure 1
also comprises first photovoltaic cell or subcell 22 and second photovoltaic cell or
subcell 24. Spec. ¶ 16. Tunnel junction 26 is said to include n-doped tunnel layer
62 and p-doped tunnel layer 60. Spec. ¶¶ 16, 25.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief.
1. A tunnel junction for a semiconductor device, the tunnel
junction comprising:
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

3

an n-doped tunnel layer, wherein the n-doped tunnel layer is
constructed of aluminum indium phosphide arsenic (AlInPAs); and
a p-doped tunnel layer, wherein the p-doped tunnel layer is
constructed of aluminum gallium arsenide antimonide (AlGaAsSb).
Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woo3 in
view of Wanlass;4 and
(2) claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woo
in view of Wanlass, further in view of Caneau.5
B. DISCUSSION
1. Claims 1 and 4
Woo Figure 2 shows a dual-junction solar cell comprising first and second
photovoltaic cells or subcells 202 and 204, connected by tunnel junction 290. Woo
¶ 40. The Examiner finds that the tunnel junction comprises p-type and n-type
layers (i.e., layers 240 and 250, respectively, in Woo Figure 2) but finds that the
tunnel junction is not constructed of the combination of materials recited in claim
1. Final Act. 8.6
The Examiner finds that Woo’s first and second subcells may be constructed
of AlGaAsSb and AlInAsP, respectively. Final Act. 7 (citing Woo ¶ 55). The
Examiner relies on Wanlass to show that, at the time of the Appellant’s invention,
it was known to construct a tunnel junction layer from the material of the

3 US 2012/0125392 A1, to Woo et al., published May 24, 2012 (“Woo”).
4 US 5,019,177, to Wanlass, issued May 28, 1991 (“Wanlass”).
5 US 2005/0253222 A1, to Caneau et al., published November 17, 2005
(“Caneau”).
6 Final Office Action dated March 29, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

4

corresponding photovoltaic subcell to provide a “lattice-matched device structure .
. . to allow current matching for the photovoltaic subcells to be electrically
connected in series without problems.” Final Act. 8 (emphasis added); see also
Final Act. 5. Based on the teachings in Wanlass, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Woo’s solar
cell to comprise, from top to bottom, an AlGaAsSb subcell, an AlGaAsSb tunnel
layer, an AlInAsP tunnel layer, and an AlInAsP subcell. Final Act. 8.
Claim 1 recites that the AlGaAsSb tunnel layer is p-doped and the AlInAsP
tunnel layer is n-doped. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner finds Woo discloses a n-
doped AlInAsP tunnel layer but finds that Woo, as modified by Wanlass, does not
teach that the AlGaAsSb tunnel layer is p-doped. Final Act. 8. Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds that “[w]hen the AlInAsP layer is selected to be the n-doped layer,
the AlGaAsSb [layer] must be an [sic] p-doped layer in the tunnel junction of n-
doped and p-doped layers” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9.
The Appellant argues that Wanlass Figure 2, reproduced below, “illustrates
that the top subcell 30 and the tunnel junction 35 of the solar cell may both be
constructed of InP” and “the bottom subcell 40 and the tunnel junction 35 may be
constructed of GaInAsP.” Appeal Br. 8. That is, the Appellant argues that “the
material of the tunnel junction 35 of Wanlass may be selected to match the top
subcell 30 or the bottom subcell 40.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

5

Wanlass Figure 2 is a side elevational view of an
embodiment of a monolithic tandem photovoltaic
solar cell according to the disclosed invention.
The Appellant argues that Wanlass Figure 3, reproduced below, “illustrates a
similar principle, however, instead of a tunnel junction 35, FIG. 3 illustrates metal
interconnect contacting layers 34.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Wanlass, col. 8, ll. 48–
50 (disclosing that contacting layers 34 are “functionally equivalent to the tunnel
junction”).
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

6

Wanlass Figure 3 is a side elevational view of another
embodiment of a monolithic tandem photovoltaic
solar cell according to the disclosed invention.
The Appellant’s argument directed to Wanlass Figure 3 is not persuasive of
reversible error. In contrast to the Appellant’s argument directed to Wanlass
Figure 2 and consistent with the Examiner’s findings, Wanlass Figure 3
unequivocally shows that the material in upper cell 30 and upper contacting layer
34 are the same (i.e., InP) and the material in bottom cell 40 and lower contacting
layer 34 are the same (i.e., GaInAsP). Therefore, it is not necessary to address the
Appellant’s argument directed to Wanlass Figure 2.
The Appellant also argues that Woo, as modified by Wanlass, does not teach
a tunnel junction layer constructed of AlGaAsSb because the tunnel junction
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

7

materials in Wanlass are selected based on their lattice-matching properties of
indium phosphide (InP) based materials. Appeal Br. 10–11.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. We
recognize that the subcells in Wanlass are lattice-matched to InP. Wanlass, col. 4,
ll. 18–20; see also Wanlass, col. 6, ll. 15–22 (disclosing lattice-matching to InP).
However, the Examiner also finds that Woo’s tunnel junction is lattice matched to
InP and that tunnel junction materials include AlInPAs and AlGaAsSb. Ans. 13;7
see also Woo ¶ 43. As discussed above, Wanlass Figure 3 teaches that the material
in a subcell and the corresponding contacting layer or tunnel junction layer may be
the same. See Wanlass, col. 8 ll. 48–50 (disclosing that contacting layers are
“functionally equivalent to the tunnel junction”). Thus, we find that Wanlass
Figure 3 in combination with Woo would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to construct a tunnel junction layer (e.g., 240) and a corresponding subcell (e.g.,
202) in Woo’s solar cell from the same material, including AlGaAsSb. In that
regard, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence showing that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have expected Woo’s solar cell to operate as
intended when tunnel junction layer 240 and corresponding subcell 202 are both
constructed from AlGaAsSb. See also Ans. 13 (explaining that the Appellant “has
not provided any subjective evidence that AlGaAsSb cannot be selected (or doped)
to be p-doped layer.”).
Finally, in the Reply Brief, the Appellant presents several arguments for the
first time on appeal. First, the Appellant argues that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not arbitrarily select
AlGaAsSb from the materials listed in paragraph [0055] of Woo to
construct a p-doped tunnel junction, since each material may produce

7 Examiner’s Answer dated February 14, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

8

a unique outcome when used for one or both of the subcells 202 and
204. Additionally, Woo does not provide any discussion at all as to
why AlGaAsSb would be used for a p-doped subcell when compared
to an n-doped subcell.
Reply Br. 2.8 Second, the Appellant argues that Wanlass teaches away from using
AlGaAsSb as a p-doped tunnel junction because Wanlass encourages the use of
indium-based materials. Reply Br. 3. Third, the Appellant argues that “Woo and
Wanlass are not ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the problem that the present application
is attempting to solve.” Reply Br. 3, 4.
According to 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2):
Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the
appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of rejection,
will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal, unless good cause is shown.
In this case, the Appellant’s arguments, raised for the first time in the Reply
Brief, are not responsive to an argument raised for the first time in the Examiner’s
Answer, and the Appellant has not shown good cause why the arguments in the
Reply Brief could not have been raised in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, the
Appellant’s arguments are untimely and will not be considered on appeal.

8 Reply Brief dated April 14, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

9

In sum, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
factual findings in the obviousness rejection of claim 1.9 Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 4 is sustained.10
2. Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s findings of
fact or conclusions of law in the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, and 7. Rather, the
Appellant argues that Caneau does not remedy the deficiencies in the obviousness
rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11.
For the reasons discussed above, the Appellant does not identify a reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the obviousness rejection
of claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 is sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

9 The Appellant argues that the phrase “monolithically integrate” in paragraph 55
of Woo does not mean that the integrated components are formed of the same
material. See Appeal Br. 7. Rather, the Appellant argues that paragraph 55 of
Woo “simply states that the tunnel junction 290 electrically connects photovoltaic
subcells together, and that the photovoltaic cells may be constructed of
AlGaAsSb.” Appeal Br. 7. It is not necessary to address the Appellant’s argument
directed to the meaning of the phrase “monolithically integrate” in view of our
reasons for sustaining the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
10 The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability
of dependent claim 4.
Appeal 2020-003655
Application 14/860,214

10

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4 103 Woo, Wanlass 1, 4
2, 3, 6, 7 103 Woo, Wanlass,
Caneau
2, 3, 6, 7
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 7

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED