Ex Parte Asheim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

13611314 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/611,314 09/12/2012
28524 7590 06/21/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael J. Asheim
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.
2012P02020US 1010
EXAMINER
ADJAGBE, MAXIME M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. ASHEIM, MANJINDER J. SINGH, and
EDWARD A. MA YDA
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314 1
Technology Center 3700
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael J. Asheim et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-
20, which constitute all of the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellants identify Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A load and noise mitigation system for attachment to a
wind turbine blade having a blade body, the load and noise
mitigation system comprising:
a flex member for attachment adjacent the trailing edge of
the blade body; and
a noise reduction member associated with the flex
member;
wherein at least a portion of the flex member is configured
to deform and change in orientation from a first deactivated
position to a second activated position in the presence of an air
pressure force on at least a portion of the flex member; and
wherein the change in orientation of the flex member is
effective to reduce a pressure gradient between opposed sides of
the blade and simultaneously to orient the noise reduction
member toward a natural undisturbed flow stream direction;
wherein the flex member is configured to bend in cross-
section in a deformable connection between the trailing edge of
the blade body and the noise reduction structure in response to
the air pressure force to reduce the pressure gradient by at least
25% upon the change in orientation.
Appeal Br. 10, Claims App.
2
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314
Rejections2
Appellants seek review of the following rejections, each of which was
made by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a): 3
I. Claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-20 as unpatentable over Fritz4
and design choice;
II. Claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-20 as unpatentable over Lin5
and design choice;
III. Claim 10 as unpatentable over Fritz, design choice, and
Giguere; 6 and
IV. Claim 10 as unpatentable over Lin, design choice, and Giguere.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 1--4, 6-9,
11-14, and 16-20 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention based on Fritz and design choice. Ans. 2-13.
2 The Examiner withdrew two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) following
an amendment by Appellants. See Advisory Action (mailed July 1, 2015);
Ans. 24--25; Reply Br. 1.
3 Although design choice typically is not recited in the statement of the
rejection, the Examiner phrased each of the rejections in the manner
repeated here.
4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0142635 Al, published
June 16, 2011.
5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0164141 Al, published
June 27, 2013.
6 U.S. Patent No. 8,834,127 B2, issued September 16, 2004.
3
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fritz teaches the limitations
of the claim
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the flex member is
configured to bend in cross-section in a deformable connection
between the trailing edge of the body and the noise reduction
structure in response to the air pressure force to reduce the
pressure gradient by at least 25% upon the change in orientation.
Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Fritz "recognizes that efficiency can be
changed depending on the size, shape and location of the flex member." Id.
( citing Fritz ,r,r 25, 28, 41, and 45). The Examiner therefore determines:
Since the size, shape and location effect [sic] the efficiency and
thus, the load/drag (change in pressure gradient), it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to modify Fritz
wherein the flex member is configured to reduce the pressure
gradient by at least 25% upon the change in orientation as a
matter of design choice depending on the desired characteristics
of the blade.
Id. at 3--4 ( citing Fritz ,r,r 20, 23).
Appellants argue that the modification proposed by the Examiner is
not simply a matter of design choice because the change proposed affects the
function of the blade by reducing lift. Appeal Br. 8. Additionally,
Appellants contest the Examiner's characterization of Fritz's teachings with
respect to the flexibility the blade. Reply Br. 2.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
The amount of flexibility is therefore not inventive since the prior
[art] recognizes that increase[d] flexibility leads to reduced
stress; and because the amount of flexibility of the flex member
is direct[ly] linked to reduction of the pressure gradient, one of
the ordinary in the art [sic] would have designed the flex member
with a specific flexibility to obtain the claimed reduction in
pressure gradient.
Ans. 28.
4
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314
Fritz teaches that "[t]he contoured notches 128 may generally increase
the flexibility of and reduce the stresses in the blade extension 110." Fritz
,r 3 6. Fritz explains the benefits of increased flexibility provided by
contoured notches 128 in terms of allowing blade extension 110 to "bend
and match the contours of the aerodynamic profile of the rotor blade 22."
Id. Fritz provides three examples of the benefits provided by contoured
notches 12 8: ( 1) "allow[ ing] the blade extension 110, when mounted to the
rotor blade 22, to generally correspond to the aerodynamic profile of the
rotor blade 22"; (2) "reduc[ing] the surface area of the blade extension 110
and reduc[ing] the continuity of the surface through the length of the blade
extension 110, thus reducing stresses in the blade extension 110 and
allowing the blade extension 110 to more easily bend while maintaining
suitable stiffness and rigidity"; and (3) "allow[ing] for thermal expansion
and thermal contraction of the blade extension 110." Id.
As discussed above, Fritz teaches both flexibility of the blade
extension and several advantages thereof. Fritz, however, does not
specifically disclose reducing the pressure gradient. Faced with this
deficiency, the Examiner turned to design choice. But, there must be "a
reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the
specific design choice." Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 Fed.
Appx. 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, this is not a case of simply
rearranging known parts, as is often encountered in circumstances that may
be characterized as design choice. See, e.g., In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555
( CCP A 197 5) ( affirming the Board's finding of obviousness based on design
choice where the rearrangement of parts did not produce a novel or
unexpected result). Rather, as Appellants contend and the Examiner appears
5
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314
to acknowledge, the alleged design changes do more than simply rearrange
known parts, the changes impact the function of the blade. See, e.g., Ans. 28
( discussing flexibility and pressure gradient as though known changes in one
affect the other). Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not agree with
the Examiner's reliance on design choice. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection. 7
Re} ection II
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 1--4, 6-9,
11-14, and 16-20 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention based on Lin and design choice. Ans. 13-23.
The Examiner's rejection based on Lin is nearly identical to the above
rejection based on Fritz. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Lin teaches the limitations of the claim
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the flex member is
configured to bend in cross-section in a deformable connection
between the trailing edge of the body and the noise reduction
structure in response to the air pressure force to reduce the
pressure gradient by at least 25% upon the change in orientation.
7 Independent claim 14 recites, "wherein the flex member is configured to
reduce the pressure gradient by at least 25% upon the change in orientation."
Appeal Br. 13. Independent claim 19 recites, "wherein the change in
orientation of the flex member is effective to reduce a pressure gradient
between opposed sides of the blade by at least 25% and simultaneously to
orient the plurality of the serrations of the brush toward a natural
undisturbed flow stream direction." Id. at 14. The Examiner relies upon the
same design choice rationale in rejecting each of these claims. Ans. 9
(claim 14), 12 (claim 19). Accordingly, our discussion of claim 1 applies
equally to independent claims 14 and 19, as well as the claims that depend
from claims 1, 14, and 19.
6
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314
Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that Lin "recognizes that flexibility can be
changed depending on the material, size and location of the flex member."
Id. (citing Lin ,r,r 16, 17, and 27). The Examiner therefore determines:
Id.
Since the size, shape and location effect [sic] the geometry at the
trailing edge and thus, the load/ drag ( change in pressure
gradient), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art ... to modify Lin wherein the flex member is configured
to reduce the pressure gradient by at least 25% upon the change
in orientation as a matter of design choice depending on the
desired characteristics of the blade.
Appellants argue that the modification proposed by the Examiner is
not simply a matter of design choice because the change proposed affects the
function of the blade by reducing lift. Appeal Br. 8. Additionally,
Appellants contest the Examiner's characterization of Lin's teachings with
respect to the flexibility the blade. Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner raises a position similar to that taken with respect to
Fritz. Ans. 29--30. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Lin's flex member
is made of the same materials described by Appellants for their flex member.
Id. at 29.
In reply, Appellants contend that "[ fJlexiblity is dependent not only on
materials but on structural form, which is dictated by purpose." Reply Br. 3.
Lin teaches that "[ u ]sing a low modulus material for the flexible
adapter component 12 reduces stressed concentrations at the attachment
points." Lin ,r 22; see id. ,r 27 (same). Nonetheless, we reach the same
conclusion here for the same reasons discussed in the context of Rejection I:
( 1) the Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have made the changes, and (2) the changes do more than simply
7
Appeal2016-003691
Application 13/611,314
rearrange known parts-the changes impact the function of the blade. See,
e.g., Ans. 29 ( discussing flexibility and pressure gradient as though known
changes in one affect the other). Accordingly, on the record before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner's reliance on design choice. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection. 8
Rejections III and IV
Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. The
rejections of claim 10 rely upon the Examiner's findings with respect to
Fritz and Lin as applied to claim 1. Ans. 23-24. Accordingly, we do not
sustain these rejections for the reasons discussed above with respect to
Rejections I and II.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14,
and 16-20.
REVERSED
8 As explained in the previous rejection, independent claims 14 and 19 recite
similar limitations and the Examiner relies upon the same design choice
rationale in rejecting each of these claims. Ans. 19-20 (claim 14), 22
( claim 19). Accordingly, our discussion of claim 1 applies equally to
independent claims 14 and 19, as well as the claims that depend from
claims 1, 14, and 19.
8