Antonis Marinopoulos et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2019

14341165 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
14/341,165 07/25/2014 Antonis Marinopoulos 04189-P0181A 1522
137670 7590 07/31/2019
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
LINDSAY, BERNARD G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2119
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTONIS MARINOPOULOS, HEINZ LENDENMANN,
JIUPING PAN, KAILASH SRIVASTAVA, MAHYAR ZARGHAMI,
and MUHAMAD REZA
____________

Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before St. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–9, and 11–15. App. Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard Oral Arguments on July
3, 2019.

1 The Appeal Brief identifies ABB Research Ltd., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

2
We AFFIRM.2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for wind-based electrical
power generation with power prediction capability. See Abstract.

INVENTION
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A system for producing electrical power, comprising:
a plurality of wind turbine units, each wind turbine unit
of the plurality of wind turbine units being adapted to produce
electrical power based on kinetic energy extracted from wind;
a first plurality of sensors, each sensor of the first
plurality of sensors being adapted to sense at least one wind
characteristic at a respective wind turbine unit of a proper
subset of the plurality of wind turbine units;
a second plurality of sensors, each sensor of the second
plurality of sensors being arranged at a distance with respect to
each of the wind turbine units in the plurality of wind turbine
units and being adapted to sense at least one wind characteristic
at a location at which the sensor is arranged; and

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 22, 2018, “App. Br.”), the Reply
Brief (filed June 22, 2018, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
May 8, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed September 12, 2017, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed July 25, 2014, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

3
a processing unit, wherein the processing unit and first
and second plurality of sensors are communicatively coupled
such that the processing unit is able to receive sensed wind
characteristics from each of the first and second plurality of
sensors;
the processing unit being adapted to estimate at least one
wind characteristic at each wind turbine unit that is not included
in the proper subset of the plurality of wind turbine units, based
on:
the sensed at least one wind characteristic at the
respective wind turbine units of the proper subset of the
plurality of wind turbine units; and
an estimate of changes in wind characteristic at each
wind turbine unit that is not included in the proper subset of the
plurality of wind turbine units caused by presence of other wind
turbine units of the plurality of wind turbine units;
wherein at least one of (i) each sensor of the first
plurality of sensors is adapted to sense a plurality of successive
values of the at least one wind characteristic at the respective
wind turbine unit of the proper subset of the plurality of wind
turbine units, and (ii) each sensor of the second plurality of
sensors is adapted to sense a plurality of successive values of
the at least one wind characteristic at the location at which the
sensor is arranged;
the processing unit being adapted to predict a magnitude
of electrical power production by the plurality of wind turbine
units at at least one predefined point in time in the future based
on the estimated wind characteristics and a statistical measure
of a plurality of values of sensed wind characteristics obtained
during at least one time period.

Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

4
References and Rejections3
Lof US 2002/0087234 A1 July 4, 2002
Schubert US 2012/0299747 A1 Priority Nov. 11, 2009
Leipold-Buettner4 US 2012/0169052 A1 Priority May 31, 2010

The Claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1–6 and 12–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leipold, Lof, and Schubert. Final Act. 5–17.
2. Claims 7–9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leipold and Lof. Final Act. 17–26.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–9 and 11–15 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’
arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6–18.

CLAIMS 1–9 AND 11–15: OBVIOUSNESS OVER LEIPOLD-BUETTNER,
LOF, AND SCHUBERT.
Appellants argue all claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. See App. Br. 7, 18. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103

3 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act. 2.
4 We refer to this reference as “Leipold” following the Examiner and
Appellants.
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

5
rejection on the basis of representative Claim 1, and refer to the rejected
claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv);
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
A second plurality of sensors.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a second plurality of sensors,
each sensor of the second plurality of sensors being arranged at a distance
with respect to each of the wind turbine units in the plurality of wind turbine
units and being adapted to sense at least one wind characteristic at a location
at which the sensor is arranged.” Independent Claims 7 and 11 recite
commensurate limitations.
The Examiner finds Leipold teaches this limitation. Final Act. 6
(citing Leipold, ¶ 29) (“wind measurement apparatuses are provided
independently of the individual wind energy apparatuses (turbines)”).
Appellants contend Leipold’s wind sensors are not located remote
from the wind turbine units, as claimed. App. Br. 9. Appellants argue
Leipold discloses the wind sensors are located “on the hub 16 of the rotor
12.” Id. (citing Leipold, ¶ 31; Fig 2). Appellants further argue Leipold
discloses an alternative arrangement whereby:
[i]nstead of a fixed association between a wind measurement
apparatus and one of the wind energy apparatuses, it is also
possible for one or more of the wind measurement apparatuses
to be provided independently of the individual wind energy
apparatuses in the area of the wind energy installation.
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

6
Id. (quoting Leipold, ¶ 29). Appellants argue Leipold’s second arrangement
still teaches the sensors are located in the area of the wind energy
installation. Id.
The Examiner finds Leipold teaches this limitation by disclosing a
wind sensor 2 remote from the wind energy installation. Ans. 29.
Appellants argue at most Leipold teaches wind sensor 2 may be
independent of wind turbine 3, but that the Leipold’s text lacks any
suggestion that the wind sensor is arranged at a distance from the turbines.
Reply Br. 3.
With respect to the location of wind sensors, Leipold discloses:
Instead of a fixed association between a wind measurement
apparatus and one of the wind energy apparatuses, it is also
possible for one or more of the wind measurement apparatuses
to be provided independently of the individual wind energy
apparatuses in the area of the wind energy installation.
Leipold, ¶ 29.
The wind energy apparatus 3 in the wind energy installation 1 is
for this purpose arranged in a wind field 10 which is detected
with the aid of a predictive wind measurement apparatus 2,
which is arranged on the hub 16 of the rotor 12.
Leipold, ¶ 31.
We find Leipold teaches and suggests a first plurality of wind
measurement apparatus 2 which are collocated on rotor hubs of a subset of
the wind turbines, but that each individual wind turbine is not required to
have its own wind measurement apparatus. See Leipold, ¶¶ 29, 31. Leipold
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

7
further discloses “it is also possible for one or more of the wind
measurement apparatuses to be provided independently of the individual
wind energy apparatuses in the area of the wind energy installation.”
Leipold, ¶ 29. We find this further disclosure teaches and suggests the
claimed second plurality of wind measurement apparatus.
Appellants contend “even with the wind measurement apparatus being
provided independently of the wind energy apparatus, it is still positioned at
the wind energy apparatus and thus in the area of the wind energy
installation.” App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue that Leipold fails to teach
a system including “a second plurality of sensors that are arranged at a
distance with respect to each of the wind energy apparatuses.” Id.
However, contrary to Appellants, the claims do not recite a specific
distance by which the second plurality of wind measurement devices must
be remote from the wind farm. The claims recite, inter alia, “each sensor of
the second plurality of sensors being arranged at a distance with respect to
each of the wind turbine units.” That is, the claims do not require that the
sensors be “remote” from the wind farm (App. Br. 9), but rather “at a
distance” wherein such at a distance” does not preclude being “in the area”
of the wind energy installation as long as they are “arranged at a distance.”
See Claim 1. 5

5 Patentability is based upon the claims. “It is the claims that measure the
invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107,
1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). A basic canon of claim construction is that
one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description.
Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

8
Here, Leipold teaches some (a second plurality) of the sensors are not
located on a wind turbine, and thus, are located “at a distance with respect to
each of the wind turbine units,” as claimed.

Estimate at least one wind characteristic.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “the processing unit being adapted to
estimate at least one wind characteristic at each wind turbine unit.”
Appellants contend Leipold teaches “a central pattern recognition apparatus
which correlates the current wind measured values from the wind
measurement apparatus.” App. Br. 11 (quoting Leipold, ¶ 8). Appellants
argue a correlation is not an estimation. Id.
Appellants’ contentions with respect to Leipold are moot because the
Examiner applies Lof to teach the claimed estimation of wind
characteristics:
Lof teaches that: the processing unit being adapted to estimate
at least one wind characteristic at each wind turbine unit that is
not included in the proper subset of the plurality of wind turbine
units, based on: the sensed at least one wind characteristic at the
respective wind turbine units of the proper subset of the
plurality of wind turbine units.
Final Act. 8 (citing Lof, ¶¶ 70, 75, 192–4). “[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections

1998).

Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

9
are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375
(Fed.Cir.1986).
Appellants contend Lof fails to teach or suggest estimation, as
claimed, but rather, discloses “wind energy siting tools in combination with
statistical regression and correlation methods ... to predict the wind. App.
Br. 14 (quoting Lof, ¶ 192).
The Examiner finds “prediction,” as disclosed by Lof, may be fairly
equated with the claimed “estimation” because the Oxford Dictionary6
defines “predict” as “Say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in
the future.”
Moreover, the Examiner finds Applicants admit that Leipold
determines a future state “before any loads can be reactively measured” and
the Examiner finds determining a future state implies an estimate because
the future loads cannot be measured precisely until they actually occur. Ans.
30 (citing App. Br. 11). The Examiner further finds nothing distinguishes
the broadly claimed “estimate” from a calculation because an estimate is an
approximate calculation and Leipold teaches a calculation based on
measured values. Id.
Appellants contend Leipold discloses: “a wind measurement
apparatus for predictive measurement of wind profiles.” Reply Br. 4
(quoting Leipold, ¶ 7) (and similar quotations). Appellants argue: “Leipold

6 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/predict.
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

10
clearly teaches that wind profiles/values are detected and measured by the
wind measurement apparatus 2, such as a SODAR (sound detection and
ranging) or a LIDAR (light detection and ranging) anemometer.” Id., 5.
We disagree with Appellants. We understand Leipold to disclose a
prediction, i.e., an estimation of a future wind measurement. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand Leipold to imply that an instrument could actually
measure, but not estimate, a future state of a physical variable. Reply Br. 5.

Estimate a wind characteristic at each wind turbine unit
that is not included in the proper subset.
The claims recite, inter alia, “an estimate of changes in wind
characteristic at each wind turbine unit that is not included in the proper
subset of the plurality of wind turbine units caused by presence of other
wind turbine units of the plurality of wind turbine units” (or commensurate
recitations).
Appellants contend Leipold teaches wind is detected only at the
apparatus on which a detector is mounted, but wind is not detected at wind
turbines not mounting a detector (i.e., wind turbine unit that is not included
in the proper subset of the plurality of wind turbine units). App. Br. 12.
The Examiner finds this argument to be moot because the Final
Action cited the combination of Leipold and Lof to find wind sensors
mounted on wind turbines (the proper subset) are used to predict wind speed
and electrical power generated and the consideration includes wake effect of
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

11
nearby turbines (thus effects on turbines not mounting a detector, i.e., not in
proper subset.). Ans. 30 (citing Final Act. 8–10).
The Reply Disputes the teaching of Lof, but fails to engage the
Examiners finding regarding the combination of Leipold and Lof. See
Reply. Br. 6.

A magnitude of electric power production.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “the processing unit being adapted to
predict a magnitude of electrical power production by the plurality of wind
turbine units at at least one predefined point in time in the future based on
the estimated wind characteristics and a statistical measure of a plurality of
values of sensed wind characteristics obtained during at least one time
period. Independent Claims 7 and 11 contain commensurate recitations.
Appellants contend Lof teaches data from a meteorological service is used to
predict electric power production, but not that estimated wind characteristics
are used for this prediction. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner disagrees and finds Lof discloses: “Electric power
production is calculated from predicted wind speed and direction as
described above including effects of wakes from nearby turbines.” Ans. 31
(quoting Lof, ¶ 194). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner errs in this finding.

Motivation to combine Leipold and Lof.
Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

12
The Examiner finds Leipold and Lof each relate to monitoring and
management of wind farms and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to modify Leipold in order to better manage electrical
power production from a wind production facility by accounting for the
wake effects, as taught by Lof. Final Act. 9–10.
Appellants contend there is a lack of motivation because “Lof is
concerned with ‘enhance[ing] the commercial value of electrical power
produced from a wind turbine production facility.’” But, Appellants argue
“Leipold’s system is not focused on making wind power commercially
marketable.” App. Br. 17.
Appellants are not convincing because Leipold discloses the
“invention relates to a wind energy installation for conversion of wind
energy in a wind field to electrical energy. Leipold, ¶ 1. “The question is
not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but whether the
combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under
the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Here, both Leipold and Lof relate to the
production of electrical energy by wind farms. It is reasonable that both sets
of inventors would be motivated to maximize electric power production.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.

Appeal 2018-006912
Application 14/341,165

13
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1–9 and 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
AFFIRMED.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED