SENVION SE.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 15, 20202019004414 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/652,874 06/17/2015 Jens Geisler GMH/525/PC/US 2613 2543 7590 05/15/2020 ALIX, YALE & RISTAS, LLP 150 TRUMBULL STREET SIXTH FLOOR HARTFORD, CT 06103 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VIET P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2832 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2020 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): ip@pctlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JENS GEISLER, STEFAN SCHRADER, and JENS FORTMANN ____________ Appeal 2019-004414 Application 14/652,874 Technology Center 2800 ___________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Senvion SE (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2019-004414 Application 14/652,874 2 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5, 8–11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Damen (EP 2 628 947 A1; published Aug. 21, 2013) and Kjær et al. (WIPO Publication 2014/026688 A1; published Feb. 20, 2014).2 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Damen and Kjær, further in view of Delmerico (US 2006/0132993 A1; published June 22, 2006). Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Damen and Kjær, further in view of Krueger (US 2010/0283247 A1; published Nov. 11, 2010). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to highlight key limitation in dispute): 1. A method for controlling the electrical moment of a wind turbine by closed-loop control in the event of a grid fault, comprising the following steps: a. discovering a fall in voltage that is outside the limits of normal operation; b. initializing a moment ramp (31); c. comparing an electrical moment target value (52) determined by a moment closed-loop controller (26, 27) with the moment ramp (31); d. selecting the lesser value from step c. as a moment setpoint value (35); and 2 The Examiner cites to the U.S. counterpart of this reference (US 2015/0267686 A1; published Sept. 24, 2015) and for consistency, we will do the same. Appeal 2019-004414 Application 14/652,874 3 e. setting the electrical moment of the wind turbine on the basis of the moment setpoint value (35). Appellant’s arguments are directed to the meaning of the italicized phrases, which appear in claim 1 supra, as well as in independent claim 14, which recites a system corresponding to method claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11, Claims Appendix; generally Appeal Br.). Accordingly, we decide each ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of the arguments made in support of patentability of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). ANALYSIS After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings based on Damen, which is directed to a control system for a wind turbine system using a feedback loop to detect a fall in voltage, initialize a moment ramp, and set an electrical moment of a wind turbine (Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner relies Appeal 2019-004414 Application 14/652,874 4 upon Kjær for a teaching or suggestion of comparing an electrical moment target value determined by a moment closed loop controller with a moment ramp and selecting the lesser value for a moment setpoint value (Final Act. 3). Appellant makes three main arguments: 1) Kjær uses an external value PREF in the controller so the feedback loop is not a closed loop system (Appeal Br. 7–8), 2) the moment ramp of the claim does not encompass the signal PA_LIM adjusted by a ramp rate limiter of Kjær (Appeal Br. 8), and 3) there is no motivation to either combine the distinct teachings within Kjær together, as the Examiner does, or to combine Damen with Kjær (Appeal Br. 8–9). It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (also noting that “as applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”) With respect to Appellant’s first argument, that PREF is an external signal so the controller is an open loop controller, the Examiner counters that the controller is closed loop because the eventual input signal PREF_INT used in the feedback loop of Figure 8 is an internal value (e.g., Ans. 3). Kjær states that an internal power reference signal “PREF_INT is then used by the turbine controller 26 in place of PREF to adjust the blade pitch and output power as described above” (¶ 48 of Kjær, cited in Ans. 3). Since the internal signal PREF_INT can be an internal signal which is looped back, instead of the external PREF, the turbine controller can fairly be construed as a closed loop Appeal 2019-004414 Application 14/652,874 5 controller (Ans. 3). Here, as the Examiner points out, the claims do not further limit the signals to being wholly internally generated throughout the controller (Ans. 3). Further, Appellant’s Specification lacks any limiting definition of a “closed loop” controller (see generally Spec.). Thus, the Examiner reasonably determined that the claim recitation encompasses the use of internal values when they are the lesser of two values. Second, Appellant’s contention that the signal PA_LIM adjusted by a ramp rate limiter of Kjær cannot be considered a moment ramp (Appeal Br. 8) is similarly unpersuasive of reversible error. The Examiner relies upon the Appellant’s definition of a moment ramp as a “value that is related to the electrical moment of the wind turbine and that increases, starting with an initial value” (Spec. ¶ 6). While Appellant states that PA_LIM is not a moment ramp but a signal (PA) adjusted by a ramp rate limiter (Appeal Br. 8), this does not clearly distinguish the two values from each other, based on the definition from the Specification relied up in the Appeal Brief and Answer. The Examiner contends that this definition also describes element PA in Figure 8, since Kjær teaches that value as “an increasing available power PA” that has a high ramp rate limitation applied to it to facilitate compliance with grid codes (Ans. 3, citing Kjær ¶ 49). Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s determination that the disputed claim term encompasses the signal of Kjær is in error. Last, it has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d Appeal 2019-004414 Application 14/652,874 6 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has failed to sufficiently explain how the applied prior art rendered claim 1 obvious is also not persuasive of error as Appellant fails to consider the applied prior art as a whole and the inferences that one of ordinary skill would have made. In rebutting Appellant’s arguments against obviousness, the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to have combined the references since they “both are concerned with grid faults and correcting the output so that the system can continue supplying power” (Ans. 5). In support of this position, the Examiner cites Kjær’s statement about grid faults — that the controller is required to manage changes as quickly as possible “while suppressing other changes in order to meet grid code requirements” (Ans. 4 citing Kjær ¶ 46). This cited section, along with Kjær’s overall disclosure (e.g., ¶ 9, “the plant controller may request a specific power production level . . . to provide an operating reserve to improve grid stability,” ¶ 25, the embodiments overall objective is to “reduce the amount of pitching required to maintain desired power output levels”) supports the Examiner’s contention that Kjær is concerned with grid output, including faults, throughout all the embodiments disclosed, including those depicted in Figures 5–9. Consequently, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, a person of ordinary skill would have looked to Kjær for disclosure on controllers for wind turbines that take into account grid restrictions. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the use of the invention of Kjær, e.g., the closed loop controller and the moment ramp, to modify the grid controller of Damen, Appeal 2019-004414 Application 14/652,874 7 would have been within the skill and creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as all claims dependent thereon, noting that Appellant relies upon the arguments made for claim 1 for all the other claims (see also, Ans. 12–17). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 8– 11, 14 103 Damen, Kjær 1, 2, 5, 8– 11, 14 3 103 Damen, Kjær, Delmerico 3 6, 12 103 Damen, Kjær, Krueger 6, 12 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation