Ex Parte Chandra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2018

13165216 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/165,216 06/21/2011
49267 7590 06/08/2018
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road, Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BHUPESH CHANDRA
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.
YOR920110191US1
(163-411)
CONFIRMATION NO.
3408
EXAMINER
BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2018 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):
docketing@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BHUPESH CHANDRA, AUGUSTIN J. HONG, JEEHW AN KIM,
DEVENDRA K. SADANA, and GEORGE S. TULEVSKI
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165 ,216
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 22,
and 23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed June 21, 2011, the
Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated February 24, 2016,
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed July 25, 2016, the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) dated January 6, 2017, and Appellants' Reply Brief (Reply
Br.) filed March 6, 2017.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to photovoltaic devices having improved
performance by reducing barriers for carbon-based electrodes. Spec. i-f 2.
Appellants disclose that a Schottky barrier exists between the p-type (p-
doped) layer of a solar cell stack and the transparent conductive thin film or
transparent conductive oxide (TCO). Id. i-f 7. Appellants explain that "[t]he
Schottky barrier is a potential barrier formed at a metal-semiconductor
junction which has rectifying characteristics like a diode." Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A photovoltaic device, comprising:
a photovoltaic stack having an N-doped layer, a P-doped
layer of a material selected from the group consisting of
amorphous silicon, amorphous hydrogenated silicon and a
combination thereof, and an intrinsic layer; and
a transparent electrode formed on the photovoltaic stack
and including a carbon nanotube layer and a high work function
metal layer, the high work function metal layer being gold
nanodots having a size between 0.1 nm to and 20 nm, which is
disposed at an interface between the carbon nanotube layer and
the P-doped layer such that the high work function metal layer
forms a reduced barrier contact and is light transmissive.
Independent claim 11 recites a photovoltaic device substantially
similar to claim 1, except for the material of the P-doped layer and further
includes a reflective metal substrate disposed in contact with the N-doped
layer. Independent claim 20 recites a method of forming a photovoltaic
device substantially similar to claim 1.
2
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. Claims 1 and 3---6 as unpatentable over Kim 3 in view of
Tanaka· 4
'
2. Claims 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over Kim in view
of Tanaka and Zhu; 5
3. Claims 1, 3---6, 20, 22, and 23 as unpatentable over Hamakawa6
in view of Tanaka and Bemede; 7
4. Claims 4 and 23 as unpatentable over Hamakawa in view of
Tanaka and Bemede, further in view ofYang; 8
5. Claims 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over Hamakawa
in view of Tanaka, Zhu, and Bemede;
6. Claim 14 as unpatentable over Hamakawa in view of Tanaka,
Zhu, and Bemede, further in view of Yang;
3 Jeehwan Kim, et al., The Role of High Work-Function Metallic Nanodots
on the Peiformance of a-Si:H Solar Cells: Offering Ohmic Contact to Light
Trapping, 4 ACSNANO 12, 7331-7336 (2010).
4 Tanaka et al., US 2006/0213547 Al, published September 28, 2006.
5 Hongwei Zhu et al., Applications of Carbon Materials in Photovoltaic
Solar Cells, SOLAR ENERGY MATERIALS & SOLAR CELLS 93, 1461-1470
(2009).
6 Hamakawa et al., US 4,450,316, issued May 22, 1984.
7 J.C. Bemede et al., Improvement of Organic Solar Cell Performances
Using a Zinc Oxide Anode Coated by an Ultrathin Metallic Layer, APPLIED
PHYSICS LETTERS 92, 083304 (2008).
8 Yang et al., US 4,379,943, issued April 12, 1983.
3
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
7. Claim 8 as unpatentable over Kim in view of Tanaka or
Hamakawa in view of Tanaka and Bemede, further in view ofHanna9
and Nakamoto· 10
'
8. Claim 16 as unpatentable over Kim in view of Tanaka and Zhu
or Hamakawa in view of Tanaka, Zhu, and Bemede, further in view of
Hanna and Yu. 11
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim in view of Tanaka. Appellants argue the claims in
this rejection as a group, focused on the limitations of claim 1 only. Claims
3---6 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds Kim, Figure 3a, discloses a silicon solar cell
comprising a PIN photovoltaic junction device having a P-doped layer, an
intrinsic layer, and an N-doped layer and made of hydrogenated amorphous
silicon, and a transparent ZnO:Al electrode with a high work-function gold
nanodot metal layer formed on the P-doped layer. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner
finds Kim's gold nanodot layer is located at the interface between the
transparent electrode and the P-doped layer, thereby forming a reduced
barrier contact, and is light transmissive, with a thickness of 0.5 nm. Id. at 4.
9 Hanna et al., US 2014/0081028 Al, published March 20, 2014.
10 Nakamoto et al., US 6,417,606 Bl, issued July 9, 2002.
11 Young-Jun Yu et al., Tuning the Graphene Work Function by Electric
Field Effect, 9 NANO LETTERS 10, 3430-3434 (2009).
4
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
The Examiner acknowledges that Kim does not teach that the transparent
electrode includes a carbon-based layer. Id.
The Examiner relies on Tanaka for this feature, finding Tanaka
discloses various carbon material layers, including carbon, carbon
nanotubes, and fullerenes, that are interchangeable with metal oxide or
transparent conductive oxide (TCO) for use as an electrode to the
hydrogenated amorphous silicon P-doped layer in a PIN photovoltaic device.
Ans. 5. In addition, the Examiner finds Tanaka teaches the transparent
electrode can be formed of carbon nanotubes, TCO, metal layers, and
combinations of two or more of these materials. Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the Kim device by
forming the transparent electrode of carbon nanotubes in place of the TCO
material because Tanaka teaches these materials are suitable alternatives to
each other as the transparent electrode for the P-doped layer in a PIN
photovoltaic device such as Kim's device and also that carbon and TCO
materials are usable with metal in the electrode. Id. (citing In re Leshin, 277
F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP § 2144.07).
Appellants note that none of the applied prior art references
individually discloses a combination of a carbon nanotube layer and a high
work-function metal layer of gold nanodots as an electrode to a doped
photovoltaic cell. Appeal Br. 13. However, this fact is not of particular
significance since the rejection is based on the obviousness of a combination
of the teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references."). In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that Kim fails to
5
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
teach the carbon nanotube layer, but finds that Kim otherwise teaches the
remaining structure and materials of claim 1.
In this regard, Appellants contend that Kim is "far removed" from
Appellants' claimed invention because Kim's electrode does not include a
carbon-based layer and, in particular, a carbon nanotube layer. Appeal Br.
14; Reply Br. 8. However, the fact that Kim does not include a carbon
nanotube layer merely establishes that Kim does not anticipate the invention
of claim 1, but does not establish that Kim is far removed therefrom.
Indeed, as the Examiner finds, the only feature from claim 1 that is missing
from Kim is the use of a carbon nanotube layer adjoining the gold nanodot
layer to form the transparent electrode for the P-doped layer of Kim's PIN
photovoltaic stack.
Appellants further argue that the Specification, paragraphs 34--35, and
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate how the combination of a carbon-based layer and a
high work-function metal layer unexpectedly increased the performance of
the solar cell relative to the prior art. Appeal Br. 14. According to
Appellants, this evidence illustrates the criticality of including both the
carbon-based layer and the high work-function metal layer to provide a solar
cell electrode that does not suffer from a Schottky barrier problem or Fermi
level pinning. Id. In particular, Appellants explain that Figure 2 and
paragraph 34 demonstrate that when carbon is disposed on a P-doped a-Si:H
layer of a PIN stack, the Schottky barrier becomes severe due to Fermi level
pinning at the carbon/P-doped layer interface. Id. at 15. As such,
Appellants urge that these cells cannot properly function as solar cells, and
6
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
they would not be considered as an alternative to a TCO. Id. 15-16; see also
Reply Br. 7-8.
On the other hand, Appellants explain that Figure 3 and paragraph 3 5
demonstrate that PIN solar cells having a high work-function metal layer
between the carbon-based layer and the P-doped a-Si:H layer performed
comparably or better than cells having only a TCO material electrode.
Appeal Br. 19. Appellants assert that none of the prior art recognize the
critical nature of the high work-function metal layer to providing the
performance enhancements needed to render carbon-based electrodes
suitable for solar cells. Id.
The burden of establishing that unexpected results support a
conclusion of nonobviousness rests with Appellants. In re Huang, 100 F.3d
135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996). "[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence
of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared
with the closest prior art." In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392
(Fed. Cir. 1991 ). "[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which
differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to
be an unexpected difference." See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080
( CCP A 1972 ). Additionally, "it is well settled that unexpected results must
be established by factual evidence. 'Mere argument or conclusory
statements in the specification does not suffice."' See In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,
705 (Fed. Cir. 1994)); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.").
Here, the Examiner finds that because Kim teaches the benefit of an
ultrathin work-function metal layer at the interface of the transparent
7
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
electrode and that this layer can alleviate the increasing Schottky barrier
produced when increasing amounts of carbon are added to the P-doped
layer, the improved results shown in Appellants' disclosure would have been
expected to the person of ordinary skill in this art. Ans. 37-38. As the
Examiner finds, Kim shows that the Schottky barrier is reduced and current
density of high C content in the p-type layer improves substantially when
combined with a 0.5nm gold nanodot layer. Id. at 38; Kim, Figs. 2a and 2b.
This reduction in the Schottky barrier and improvement in current density is
substantially the same as shown in Appellants' Figures 2 and 3.
Accordingly, the Examiner's determination that reduction in the Schottky
barrier height and improvement in current density would not have been
unexpected to those skilled in the art is supported by Kim's disclosure.
The Examiner further finds that Appellants' evidence and arguments
are not commensurate with the teachings of the applied prior art, which
teach bilayer electrode structures including a high work-function metal layer
between a TCO layer and the P-doped layer of a PIN stack. Ans. 37. As the
Examiner finds, none of the examples in Figure 2 contains a combination of
a TCO and a metal layer as the electrode as taught by Kim. Id. Although
Appellants disagree (Reply Br. 7), it is clear that each of the Figure 2
examples uses only a single electrode material without any intervening metal
layer. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Appellants' evidence does not
establish that carbon-based electrodes are inoperable, but merely that they
are inferior to a TCO electrode. Id. Kim teaches similar results to
Appellants' Figure 2, i.e., higher C content p-type layers have reduced
efficiencies, but are otherwise still operable devices. Kim, Figs. 1 and 2. In
light of these findings, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not
8
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
established that the use of carbon-based electrodes, including a carbon
nanotube layer, in PIN stack solar cells would have been inoperable.
We further note that Appellants fail to direct our attention to any
evidence supporting a conclusion that Appellants' results would have been
unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. The only mention that the
results are unexpected appears in Appellants' arguments, not in their
Specification or other evidentiary documentation. Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470.
Therefore, Appellants have not carried their burden of establishing
unexpected results in support of a conclusion of nonobviousness.
Appellants also argue that Kim leads away from an increase in carbon
content within the solar cell. Appeal Br. 16 (citing Kim, p. 7331, 2nd para.
and p. 7335, 1st para.). However, Kim also teaches that a higher carbon
content in the window layer is desirable because it increases its band gap.
Kim, p. 7331, 2nd para. "[A] given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine." Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157,
1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This is especially applicable here because Kim
further teaches mitigation of the recognized disadvantage of increasing
Schottky barrier height for increased carbon content by the inclusion of the
intervening gold nanodot layer.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Tanaka is in
error because Appellants have demonstrated that carbon electrodes and ZnO
based electrodes are not equally suitable for use in solar cells. Appeal Br.
17. Appellants note that Tanaka fails to teach or suggest a high work-
function metal layer. Id. at 20. Appellants assert they have shown that
carbon-based electrodes used as electrodes in solar cell results in inoperable
9
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
performance when compared to a ZnO electrode when directly contacting
the doped semiconductor layer of the solar cell. Id. at 17. Appellants urge
that, prior to their discovery, carbon-based electrodes and ZnO electrodes
were not interchangeable materials suitable for electrodes in solar cells. Id.
at 18. Therefore, Appellants reassert that the suitability of carbon electrodes
in solar cells when combined with a high work-function metal is an
unexpected result. Id. at 18-19.
Initially, we note that the Examiner relies on a combination of the
teachings of Kim and Tanaka in support of the conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, it is not persuasive of reversible error in this combination that
Tanaka fails to teach a high work-function metal layer combined with a
carbon-based electrode, as the Examiner does not rely on Tanaka for this
teaching. Instead, the Examiner relies on Tanaka for its teaching that
various materials are known alternatives for use alone or in combination as a
transparent electrode in a solar cell. Specifically, Tanaka teaches any of a
number of known materials may be used as the transparent electrode of a
solar cell including various metal oxides or TCOs, various metals including
gold, and various carbon materials including carbon, carbon nanotubes, and
fullerenes. Tanaka i-f 52. Tanaka further teaches one or a combination of
these materials may be used. Id. i-f 53. As explained above, although
Appellants contend they have demonstrated that carbon-based electrodes are
inoperable, the evidence suggests that carbon-based electrodes may be
somewhat inferior to TCO electrodes in efficiency, but have other
advantages, and are otherwise operable. When taken with Kim's teaching
that an intervening gold nanodot layer reduces the Schottky barrier height
attributed to carbon, the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable
10
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
expectation of success substituting a known carbon-based electrode material
for Kim's TCO electrode as Tanaka teaches these are known alternatives for
the same purpose and carbon can improve the band gap of the solar cell.
Accordingly, in view of the Examiner's findings and reasoning set
forth in the Answer, as well as the reasons set forth above, weighed against
Appellants' arguments and evidence, we determine that a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of claims 1
and 3-6.
Re} ection 2:
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 as unpatentable
over Kim in view of Tanaka and Zhu. Appellants argue the claims in this
rejection as a group, focused on the limitations of claim 11 only. Claims 13,
14, 17, and 18 stand or fall with claim 11.
Claim 11 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief.
11. A photovoltaic device, comprising:
a photovoltaic stack having a P-type layer, an intrinsic layer and
an N-type layer;
a transparent electrode formed on the P-type layer of the
photovoltaic stack, the transparent electrode including a conductive
carbon based layer of graphene and a high work function metal layer,
the high work function metal layer being gold nanodots having a size
between 0.1 nm to and 20 nm, which is disposed at an interface
between the carbon based layer and the P-type layer such that the high
work function metal layer forms a reduced barrier contact and is light
transmissive; and
a reflective metal substrate disposed in contact with the N-type
layer.
11
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
Claim 11 recites a photovoltaic device similar to the photovoltaic
device or claim 1, and includes the further limitation that the carbon-based
electrode is graphene and a recitation of a reflective metal substrate disposed
in contact with the N-type layer. The Examiner finds Kim discloses, inter
alia, a silver metal layer disposed in contact with the N-type layer. Ans. 8.
The Examiner finds that the silver electrode is inherently reflective. Id.
Indeed, Appellants disclose that silver is a highly reflective metal. Spec. i-f
31. The Examiner further finds Zhu discloses several carbon materials
suitable for use as an electrode material in solar cells, specifically teaching
graphene as a highly transparent and conductive material similar to carbon
nanotubes as a replacement for metal oxide electrodes in solar cells. Ans.
10. The Examiner, therefore, concludes that it would have been obvious to
substitute graphene as the material for Kim's electrode because Tanaka
teaches carbon electrodes are known alternatives to Kim's TCO electrode
and Zhu teaches that graphene is a known carbon material for use as an
electrode in solar cells. Id. (citing Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, and MPEP §
2144.07 (selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the
intended use is within the level of ordinary skill in the art).
Appellants repeat the same arguments against this rejection as raised
against Rejection 1. For the same reasons given above, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we likewise affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims
11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 over the combination of Kim, Tanaka, and Zhu.
Rejection 5
12
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 as unpatentable
over Hamakawa in view of Tanaka, Zhu, and Bemede. Appellants argue the
claims in this rejection as a group, focused on the limitations of claim 11
only. Claims 13, 14, 1 7, and 18 stand or fall with claim 11.
The Examiner finds Hamakawa, Figure 1 a, discloses a photovoltaic
device comprising a PIN photovoltaic junction device having P-doped layer
3, intrinsic layer 4, and N-doped layer 5, TCO electrode 2 with an
intervening thin metal layer formed on the P-doped layer, and an aluminum
electrode on the N-doped layer. Ans. 11-12, 16. The Examiner
acknowledges that Hamakawa does not teach that the transparent electrode
includes a graphene layer, that the thin metal layer is a high work-function
material, or that the electrode on the N-doped layer is reflective. Id. at 12,
15. However, the Examiner finds that Hamakawa's electrode on the N-
doped layer is inherently reflective because aluminum is a metal. Id. at 16.
The Examiner also finds Tanaka discloses various carbon material
layers, including carbon, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes, that are
interchangeable with metal oxide or transparent conductive oxide (TCO) for
use as an electrode to the P-doped layer in a PIN photovoltaic device. Ans.
12. In addition, the Examiner finds Tanaka teaches the transparent electrode
can be formed of carbon nanotubes, TCO, metal layers (including gold), and
combinations of two or more of these materials. Id. at 12, 14. The
Examiner further finds Zhu discloses several carbon materials suitable for
use as an electrode material in solar cells, specifically teaching graphene as a
highly transparent and conductive material similar to carbon nanotubes as a
replacement for metal oxide electrodes in solar cells. Id. at 12-13. The
Examiner, therefore, concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute
13
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
graphene and gold as the materials for Hamakawa's electrode and
intervening thin metal layer because Tanaka teaches carbon and gold
electrodes are known alternatives to Hamakawa's TCO electrode and Zhu
teaches that graphene is a known carbon material for use as an electrode in
solar cells. Id. at 13-14 (citing Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, and MPEP § 2144.07).
The Examiner further finds that Hamakawa, as modified in view of
Tanaka and Zhu, fails to teach that the intervening thin gold layer is formed
of a discontinuous layer of nanodots. Ans. 17. The Examiner finds Bemede
discloses an ultrathin metal layer disposed between the transparent electrode
and the photovoltaic layers of a solar cell, similar to Hamakawa, whose
optimal thickness is 0.5 nm± 0.2 nm to allow for high optical transmittance,
while reducing the interface barrier and increasing charge transport
efficiency. Id. The Examiner finds that Bemede teaches this thin gold layer
is discontinuous and forms nanodots. Id. Therefore, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to optimize the thickness of the
intervening gold layer in Hamakawa, as modified, such that the layer is
discontinuous and forms nanodots in order to increase optical transmittance,
while reducing the interface barrier and increasing the charge transport
efficiency as taught by Bemede. Id. at 18.
To the extent that Appellants repeat substantially the same arguments
against this rejection as raised against Rejection 1, those arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error for the same reasons given above. Appellants
additionally assert that Bemede discloses organic photovoltaic cells, whereas
the claimed photovoltaic cells are inorganic. Appeal Br. 31. However, this
alleged distinction is not germane to claim 11 which does not recite any
material limitation for the photovoltaic PIN stack. Further, although
14
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
Appellants argue that Bemede fails to teach carbon-based electrodes, and
fails to teach the photovoltaic device of claim 11 (id.), this argument fails to
address the rejection at issue, particularly because Bemede was not applied
as teaching carbon-based electrodes or as an anticipatory teaching of the
device of claim 11.
Accordingly, we likewise affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of
claim 11 over the combination of Hamakawa, Tanaka, Zhu, and Bemede.
Rejection 3
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3---6, 20, 22, and 23 as unpatentable
over Hamakawa in view of Tanaka and Bemede. Appellants argue the
claims in this rejection as a group, focused on the limitations of claim 1
only. Claims 3-6, 20, 22, and 23 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants repeat the same arguments against this rejection as raised
against Rejection 1. For the same reasons given above, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we likewise affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claim 1
over the combination of Hamakawa, Tanaka, and Bemede.
Re} ections 4 and 6
In addition to the rejection of claims 4 and 23 as unpatentable over
the combination of Hamakawa, Tanaka, and Bemede (rejection 3), and the
rejection of claim 14 over the combination of Hamakawa, Tanaka, Bemede,
and Zhu (rejection 5), the Examiner rejects these claims over the same
combinations of references, further in view of Yang. Appellants rely on the
same arguments presented in support of patentability of the claims subject to
15
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
rejections 3 and 5, adding only that Yang fails to remedy the deficiencies in
the prior art applied in those rejections. Appeal Br. 33. However, for the
reasons given above, we are not persuaded of any deficiencies in rejections 3
and 5.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 4 and 23,
and claim 14, as unpatentable over the combination of references relied upon
in rejections 4 and 6, respectively.
Rejection 7
The Examiner rejects claim 8 as unpatentable over Kim in view of
Tanaka, or Hamakawa in view of Tanaka and Bemede, further in view of
Hanna and Nakamoto. Appellants merely assert that Hanna does not
disclose the use of carbon-based electrodes in solar cells and Nakamoto does
not disclose photovoltaic devices. Appeal Br. 34. However, this "separate"
argument amounts to no more than assertions unrelated to the basis upon
which the Examiner relied on these references. Our reviewing court has
long held that such "argument" does not merit separate consideration. See,
e.g., In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
Rejection 8
The Examiner rejects claim 16 as unpatentable over Kim in view of
Tanaka and Zhu or Hamakawa in view of Tanaka, Zhu, and Bemede, further
in view of Hanna and Yu. Appellants merely assert that Hanna and Yu do
not disclose the use of carbon-based electrodes in solar cells. Appeal Br. 34.
However, this "separate" argument amounts to no more than assertions
16
Appeal2017-006053
Application 13/165,216
unrelated to the basis upon which the Examiner relied on these references.
This "argument" does not merit separate consideration. See Lovin, 652 F.3d
at 1357.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Examiner's Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1,
3---6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable 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
17