Appeal 2007-3964
Application 10/295,060
extends the entire length from the front of the solar cell to the second diode
terminal and further contacts the cell in claim 1; is a metallic layer upon the
solar cell in claim 7, with layer along the solar cell edge in claim 9; and is in
contact with the integral pathway extending between the front side and the
back side of the solar cell in claim 13 (Br., e.g., 2-4, 5-7, 8, and 22-23).
With respect to the grounds of rejection based on anticipation under
§§ 102(b) and 102(e), we find that neither Kukulka (Kukulka, e.g., col. 3,
l. 54 to col. 4, l. 56; col. 5, ll. 8-53; and Figs. 2, 3 and 5-7) nor Müller
(Müller, e.g., col. 2, l. 27 to col. 3, l. 21; and Figs. 1 and 3) describes to one
skilled in the art a second interconnection structure falling within claims 7
and 13, as we have interpreted this language above, as Appellants argue (Br.,
e.g., 5-6 and 12-13; cf. Answer 4, 5-6, and 10-11). We further observe that
the Examiner did not respond to Appellants’ arguments with respect to
Müller (Answer 11-12). Thus, Appellants’ arguments rebutted the prima
facie case, and the Examiner did not reestablish a prima facie case. See, e.g.,
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation we
reverse the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e).
Turning now to the grounds of rejection under § 103(a), we first
consider the rejection of all of the appealed claims over the combined
teachings of Cavicchi and Kukulka. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cavicchi’s solar
cell device (Cavicchi, e.g., col. 6, l. 33 to col. 7, l. 65; and Figs. 6 and 7) by
incorporating Kukulka’s bypass diode on the back side thereof and wiring
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013