Ex Parte Andersen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2018

13312135 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/312, 135 12/06/2011 Jesper Lykkegaard Andersen
83583 7590 06/13/2018
Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Vestas Wind Systems)
441 Vine Street
2700 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202
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.
VWS-210US 7219
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2018 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JESPER L YKKEGAARD ANDERSEN and ANTON BECH
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135 1
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-14, and 17. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest Vestas Wind
Systems A/S of Aarhus N., Denmark.
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellants' "invention relates to wind turbines and more
specifically to a pitch gear arrangement for varying the pitch of a wind
turbine blade." Spec. ,r 2.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A system for a wind turbine rotor blade, the system
compnsmg:
a pitch system comprising a pitch bearing and a wind
turbine hub, the pitch bearing being attached to the hub and being
attachable to the wind turbine rotor blade; and
a pitch gear coupled to the pitch system, the pitch gear
comprising a first discrete segment and one or more other
discrete segments, each segment having a plurality of teeth for
engaging with a pinion, wherein the pitch gear is unworn from
prior use of the pitch gear in a wind turbine;
wherein the first discrete segment has a length extending
along the pitch gear, the length corresponding to a portion of the
pitch gear that will be subjected to higher wear than a remainder
of the pitch gear, and
wherein at least the first segment is held in place by
releasable fasteners.
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under (pre-AIA)
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Weitkamp et al. (US 2003/0116970
Al, published June 26, 2003) ("Weitkamp") and Bauer et al. (US 3,888,357,
issued June 10, 197 5) ("Bauer").
2
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135
II. Claim 3 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Weitkamp, Bauer, and Royer (US 3,243,874, issued
Apr. 5, 1966).
III. Claim 4 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Weitkamp, Bauer, and Doeg (US 301,695, issued July 8,
1884).
IV. Claim 11 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Weitkamp, Bauer, and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art
("AAP A").
V. Claims 1, 5, 7, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under (pre-AIA) 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Weitkamp and Gonzalez et al.
(US 2005/0196280 Al, published Sept. 8, 2005) ("Gonzalez").
VI. Claim 3 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Weitkamp, Gonzalez, and Royer.
VII. Claim 4 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Weitkamp, Gonzalez, and Doeg.
VIII. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Weitkamp, Gonzalez, and Bauer.
IX. Claim 11 is rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Weitkamp, Gonzalez, and AAP A.
ANALYSIS
Rejections I-IV
Independent claim 1 is directed to "[a] system for a wind turbine rotor
blade" and recites "wherein the first discrete segment has a length extending
along the pitch gear, the length corresponding to a portion of the pitch gear
3
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135
that will be subjected to higher wear than a remainder of the pitch gear."
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Id. Independent claims 13 and 14 include
limitations that are similar to the recited limitation of claim 1. See id. at 21,
22.
At the outset, we note that Specification for the instant application
discloses:
Anticipated wear relates to wear on the pitch gear caused by the
pinion moving over the pitch gear surface. In particular, as
described herein, the pinion spends the majority of the time,
when in motion, moving over a relatively narrow range of teeth
on the pitch gear. A determination is made of the most likely
portions or locations of the pitch gear that will be subjected to
higher wear than other portions based on the regions most
frequently travelled over by the pinion. The predetermined
amount that the first portion extends may thus be considered an
estimate, anticipation or predetermination of a high wear region
determined before wear to that region is experienced by the pitch
gear when in operation in a turbine. The first segment can thus
be sized to extend over a region or portion of the pitch gear
expected to be subjected to high wear, or higher wear than the
remainder of the pitch gear.
Spec. ,r 13 ( emphasis added). Here, the Specification instructs one of
ordinary skill in the art that the meaning of "higher wear" refers to the
frequency that a pinion travels over a segment of a pitch gear. See also
Spec. ,r 57 (The Specification describes, "[t]he high wearing sectors [of gear
ring 97], over which the pinion passes more frequently, can be replaced
more frequently than the other sectors, reducing cost and maintenance
burdens."). Accordingly, we understand that the length of the first discrete
segment corresponds to a predetermined portion of the pitch gear in which a
pinion most frequently travels.
4
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135
The Examiner finds that Weitkamp fails to disclose a pitch gear
having segments. Final Act. 9. The Examiner turns to Bauer to remedy the
deficiency of Weitkamp with regard to claim 1. See id. at 11-13. The
Examiner finds Bauer teaches a bearing having segments 40 that form a gear
ring, where the segments have a plurality of teeth for engaging a pinion 26.
Id. at 11; see Bauer, Figs. 1-2. The Examiner explains that a segment 40 is
replaced due to tooth/teeth failure, which is "directly indicative of higher
wear," and that the replacement occurs without requiring the removal of the
other segments 40 that form the gear ring. Ans. 6-7.
The Appellants contend "Bauer fails to disclose that a certain portion
of the gear is expected to be subject to more or higher wear compared to the
remainder of the gear, which also covers a portion in the operational range
that is subject to wear." Appeal Br. 10. The Appellants assert that "merely
because a segment of the gear is within an operational range does not mean
that it will receive more wear than any other portion of the gear." Id.
Additionally, the Appellants contend that "merely disclosing that a gear
segment fails does not provide enough information to determine that the
segment underwent higher wear than the remainder of the gear"; for
example, "[a] segment may fail although it undergoes equal wear as other
segments." Reply Br. 3. The Appellants' contentions are persuasive.
Repair and replacement of a segment due to tooth failure does not
necessarily mean that the tooth or the segment was subjected to "higher
wear" -i.e., an increase in frequency that a pinion moves over a gear
surface - as compared to the remainder of the pitch gear. See Reply Br. 2,
3. A segment may fail before the remainder of the segments of a gear ring
for many reasons, such as different stress points on the segment or tooth as
5
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135
compared to the other segments. See id. at 3. As such, tooth failure or gear
segment wear is not directly indicative of "higher wear."
We determine that the Examiner's finding that Bauer teaches
"wherein the first discrete segment has a length extending along the pitch
gear, the length corresponding to a portion of the pitch gear that will be
subjected to higher wear than a remainder of the pitch gear," as recited in
claim 1, is inadequately supported because the Examiner fails to explain, and
we fail to ascertain, how Bauer's disclosure of gear teeth failure is indicative
of a pinion traveling over the failed or replaced portion with more frequency
than other portions of the pitch gear.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9,
12-14, and 17 as unpatentable over Weitkamp and Bauer.
The remaining rejections based on Weitkamp and Bauer in
combination with Royer, Doeg, or AAPA rely on the same inadequately
supported finding as discussed above. See Final Act. 14--16. Each of the
remaining rejections is not cured by additional findings and/or reasoning
associated therewith. As such, we do not sustain the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claim 3 as unpatentable over Weitkamp, Bauer, and
Royer; claim 4 as unpatentable over Weitkamp, Bauer, and Doeg; and
claim 11 as unpatentable over Weitkamp, Bauer, and AAP A.
Rejections V-IX
Similar to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14 as
discussed above, the Examiner finds that Weitkamp fails to teach, but
Gonzalez teaches, "wherein the first discrete segment has a length extending
along the pitch gear, the length corresponding to a portion of the pitch gear
6
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135
that will be subjected to higher wear than a remainder of the pitch gear."
See Final Act. 17-21. More specifically, the Examiner finds Gonzalez
teaches a gear having segments 26 that form a gear ring 2, where the
segments have a plurality of teeth for engaging with a pinion in the form of a
gear wheel. Id. at 18; see Gonzalez, Fig. 7. Similar to the Examiner's
explanation based on Bauer (supra), the Examiner explains that Gonzalez's
segment 26 is replaced due to tooth/teeth failure ( e.g., due to deterioration),
which is "directly indicative of higher wear," and that the replacement
occurs without requiring the removal of the entire gear assembly. Ans. 11-
12.
For reasons similar to those discussed above, we determine that the
Examiner's finding that Gonzalez teaches "wherein the first discrete
segment has a length extending along the pitch gear, the length
corresponding to a portion of the pitch gear that will be subjected to higher
wear than a remainder of the pitch gear," as recited in claim 1, is
inadequately supported because the Examiner fails to explain, and we fail to
ascertain, how Gonzalez's disclosure of gear teeth failure (e.g., due to
deterioration) is indicative of a pinion traveling over the failed or replaced
portion with more frequency than other portions of the pitch gear. See
Appeal Br. 14.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 12-
14, and 17 as unpatentable over Weitkamp and Gonzalez.
The remaining rejections based on Weitkamp and Gonzalez in
combination with Royer, Doeg, Bauer, or AAPA rely on the same
inadequately supported finding as discussed above. See Final Act. 22-25.
Each of the remaining rejections is not cured by additional findings and/or
7
Appeal2017-009023
Application 13/312, 135
reasoning associated therewith. As such, we do not sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claim 3 as unpatentable over Weitkamp,
Gonzalez, and Royer; claim 4 as unpatentable over Weitkamp, Gonzalez,
and Doeg; claims 6 and 9 as unpatentable over Weitkamp, Gonzalez, and
Bauer; and claim 11 as unpatentable over Weitkamp, Gonzalez, and AAPA.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9,
11-14, and 17.
REVERSED
8