Anton Bech

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2019

14720085 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019)

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