Anton BechDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 201914720085 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019) 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. 14/720,085 05/22/2015 Anton Bech VWS-462CO 1980 83583 7590 08/30/2019 Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Vestas Wind Systems) 441 Vine Street 2700 Carew Tower Cincinnati, OH 45202 EXAMINER LAMBERT, WAYNE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2019 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): mhines@whe-law.com usptodock@whe-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANTON BECH ____________________ Appeal 2019-001214 Application 14/720,085 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated November 24, 2017 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a pre-form for use in a wind turbine blade. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1 Vestas Wind Systems A/S, a company of Aarhus N., is identified as the real party in interest in this appeal. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001214 Application 14/720,085 2 1. A pre-form for use in a wind turbine blade, the pre-form comprising: at least one of layer of uncured resin pre-impregnated fibres; and at least one layer of fully cured fibre reinforced resin in an at least partly overlaying relationship with the at least one layer of uncured resin pre-impregnated fibres, wherein the layers are arranged in a sequence which is starting and ending with a cured layer, the layers being assembled together to define the pre-form, the pre-form held together by tackiness of the at least one layer of uncured resin pre-impregnated fibres. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (i) claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9–11, 12, 15, 17, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bech (WO 2004/078442 A1, published Sep. 16, 2004) in view of Burchardt (EP 1 925 436 A1, published May 28, 2008);2 (ii) claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bech in view of Burchardt and Jang (KR 20040095522, published Nov. 15, 2004); and (iii) claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bech in view of Burchardt and Ellis (US 2010/0282404 A1, published Nov. 11, 2010). 2 The heading for this rejection identifies only claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 as being subject to the rejection. Final Act. 3. The detailed grounds for the rejection include analysis directed to claims 5, 9, 10, 15, 19, and 20 as well, so these claims are regarded as rejected on this basis. Appeal 2019-001214 Application 14/720,085 3 DISCUSSION Claims 1, 2, 5, 7–11, 12, 15, and 17–20--Bech/Burchardt The Examiner finds that Bech discloses a pre-form meeting all limitations in claim 1, with the exception of employing at least one fully cured fibre reinforced layer, and that the layers are arranged in a sequence which starts and ends with a cured layer. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner turns to Burchardt for its disclosure of using at least one fully cured fibre reinforced resin layer as a wrinkle-preventing layer, and concludes that it would have been obvious to provide such fully cured layer in the makeup of the Bech pre-form in order to prevent wrinkles from forming in the pre- form. Id. at 5. Appellant maintains that Burchardt is directed to a mold layup process, in which the laminate product is made directly in the mold by arranging (stacking) individual layers in a desired pattern, and heating and curing the collection of individual layers into a final product. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contrasts this with producing pre-forms, the pre-forms including a plurality of layers assembled (stacked) into a slab, but are not cured, or at least not fully cured, which facilitates handling outside of a mold prior to being placed in a mold for further shaping and final curing. Id. at 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to identify that it was known in the prior art that wrinkling was a known problem with pre-forms. Id. As such, Appellant posits that its recognition of the problem, previously unknown to exist with pre-forms, is evidence of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention. Id. Appellant additionally notes that the proposed modification to Bech to provide a fully cured layer with high stiffness, as taught by Burchardt, as one of the layers of the Bech pre-form, would result in a pre-form not having Appeal 2019-001214 Application 14/720,085 4 certain properties disclosed in Bech as being desirable for the pre-forms therein. Appeal Br. 9. More specifically, Bech discloses that its pre-forms are to be at least partially deformable, and that portions are to be capable of undergoing very sharp bending. Bech 4:11–24. Bech states that this is made possible by avoiding full curing of the layers making up the pre-form. Id. Including a stiff, fully cured layer to such a pre-form would appear to adversely affect the capability of the pre-form to deform as desired. Accordingly, with the problem of wrinkling not previously having been recognized in the forming and handling of pre-forms, and with the proposed modification of Bech to employ a fully cured, stiff, fibre reinforced layer for the purpose of reducing or eliminating such wrinkling also producing an undesired stiffening of the pre-form, the Examiner’s articulated reason to combine the teachings of Bech and Burchardt is seen as lacking in rational underpinnings. The rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Bech in view of Burchardt is therefore not sustained. Similar to claim 1, independent claim 11 includes a limitation directed to the inclusion of at least one layer of fully cured fibre reinforced resin, and the rejection of claim 11 is not sustained for the same reason. Claims 2, 5, and 7–10 depend from claim 1, and claims 12, 15, and 17–20 depend from claim 11, and the rejection is not sustained as to these claims as well. Claim 3, 4, 13, and 14--Bech/Burchardt/Jang The Examiner does not rely on Jang in any manner that cures the deficiencies, discussed above, of the Bech and Burchardt references. The rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 as being unpatentable over Bech, Burchardt, and Jang is not sustained. Appeal 2019-001214 Application 14/720,085 5 Claims 6 and 16--Bech/Burkhardt/Ellis The Examiner does not rely on Ellis in any manner that cures the deficiencies, discussed above, of the Bech and Burchardt references. The rejection of claims 6 and 16 as being unpatentable over Bech, Burchardt, and Ellis is not sustained. DECISION The rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation