Ex Parte Teichert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13001119 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/001,119 01/27/2011
35301 7590 06/29/2018
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
CITY PLACE II
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Teichert
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.
6495-0449WOUS 9107
EXAMINER
BRADFORD, CANDACE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
patentdocket@ip-lawyers .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL TEICHERT
Appeal2017-006289
Application 13/001,119
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the non-final
rejection of claims 49 and 51---66 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Teichert (WO 03/048569 A2, pub. June 12, 2003). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies PP Energy ApS ofNordborg, Denmark as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006289
Application 13/001,119
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is a device that moves along a wind turbine
rotor blade to facilitate cleaning, repair, etc. of the blade. Spec. ,r,r 1-3.
Claim 49, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
49. A device for enabling access to a rotor blade of a wind
turbine, said device being adapted for being moved in the
longitudinal direction of the rotor blade, the device comprising:
a frame structure,
means for lowering or lifting the device in relation to the
rotor blade, and
at least one guide and support arrangement supporting and
guiding the device in relation to the rotor blade comprising at
least one arm configured to contact the rotor blade at regions at
or near at least one of a front edge of the rotor blade or a rear
edge of the rotor blade,
wherein the at least one arm of the at least one guide and
support arrangement is adjustable to the rotor blade in order to
maintain controllable contact at said regions during movement
of the device, and
wherein said at least one guide and support arrangement
comprises a plurality of contact means that maintain the
controllable contact at said regions at or near at least one of the
front edge or the rear edge of the rotor blade,
wherein at least one of the contact means of the plurality of
contact means is adapted to maintain controllable contact by
both contacting the rotor blade at a plurality of points and being
omnidirectionally movable along a surface of the rotor blade to
support and guide the device in relation to the rotor blade while
said at least one guide and support arrangement is being
adjusted to the rotor blade during movement of the device in the
longitudinal direction of the rotor blade.
2
Appeal2017-006289
Application 13/001,119
OPINION
Claim 49
The Examiner finds that Teichert discloses all of the elements of
claim 49. Final Action 2-3. In particular, the Examiner identifies Teichert's
control wheel ( element 50) as omnidirectionally movable along the surface
of the blade. Id.
Appellant argues, among other things, that Teichert's control wheel
( element 50) is not omnidirectionally movable as the wheel cannot move in
a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the blade. Appeal
Br. 14.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that, since the front
contact means of Appellant's own invention employs belts, drums, and
rollers, it necessarily follows that Teichert's control wheel 50 must be
omnidirectionally movable. Ans. 6.
Appellant's Specification defines "omnidirectional" as something that
may "readily move in any direction." Spec. ,r 37. Claim 49 requires that the
control wheel is "omnidirectionally movable along a surface of the rotor
blade"; thus, the control wheel must readily move in any direction along the
surface of the rotor. Teichert discloses that control wheel 50 has a "V-
shaped" outer face that may be used for controlling the trailing edge of the
rotor blade. Teichert, 27, 11. 19-27. A review of Figure 8 of Teichert
reveals that the V-shape of control wheel 50 provides for unidirectional (i.e.,
linear) movement along the trailing edge of the blade. See id. at Fig. 8.
Appellant correctly observes that the wheel is not capable of moving in a
direction perpendicular to that of the trailing edge of the blade. Appeal
3
Appeal2017-006289
Application 13/001,119
Br. 14. As such, the Examiner's finding of fact is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 49.
Claims 51-61, 64, and 66
Claims 51---61, 64, and 66 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 49. Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers
from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 49.
Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with
claim 49, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 51-61, 64, and 66.
Claim 62, 63, and 65
Claim 62 is an independent method claim that is substantially similar
in scope to claim 49. Claims App. Claims 63 and 65 depend from claim 62.
Id. As with claim 49, claim 62 contains a limitation directed to
omnidirectional movement of a contact means. Id. Thus, the Examiner's
rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified
above with respect to claim 49. Thus, for essentially the same reason
expressed above in connection with claim 49, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 62, 63, and 65.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 49 and 51-66 is reversed.
REVERSED
4