Appeal No. 1999-2464
Application No. 08/701,292
Claims 1 to 4 and 12 to 17 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alterative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Maruyama.
(Answer, p. 3).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103
rejections are not well founded.
A fatal deficiency common to all of the rejections is the Examiner’s position that the
crystalline grains of silicon column-like and/or cone-like structure, of Maruyama, are
partially separated from one another due to the presence of an amorphous phase such that
light is reflected from one of the columnar silicon members to another columnar silicon
member. (Answer, p. 5).
Maruyama does not discuss the reflection of light from one crystalline grain of silicon
to another crystalline grain of silicon. The Examiner states “the amorphous periphery could
be viewed as spacing the columnar members and thereby allowing light reflected from one
grain to another.” (Answer, p. 5). To the contrary, according to Maruyama, the amorphous
layer at the surface of the solar cell, which covers the top of the crystalline grains, creates a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007