Ex Parte Bonnet

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2013

11192690 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LAURENT BONNET
____________

Appeal 2011-006385
Application 11/192,690
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006385
Application 11/192,690

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the decision of the Examiner.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to power generation
systems and more particularly to methods and apparatus for reducing noise
impact from wind turbine installations.” Spec., para. [0001]. Claims 1, 16,
and 21 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal, and recites:
1. A method for controlling noise from a
wind park comprising a plurality of wind turbines,
said method comprising:
obtaining a first noise emission
measurement from each wind turbine of the
plurality of wind turbines and a first noise
immission measurement at a first location in a far
field area;
determining a noise transfer function for
each wind turbine of the plurality of wind turbines,
the transfer function relates the first noise
immission measurement to the first noise emission
measurement;
monitoring an operating noise emission
from each wind turbine of the plurality of wind
turbines;
inputting the monitored operating noise
emission into the noise transfer function to
determine a noise impact importance of each wind
turbine of the plurality of wind turbines at one of
the first location and a second location;
Appeal 2011-006385
Application 11/192,690

3

determining which, if any, of the plurality of
wind turbines to operate in a noise reduced
operation mode in accordance with the noise
impact importance determination; and
controlling an operating mode of each wind
turbine of the plurality of wind turbines in
accordance with the determination of which, if
any, of the plurality of wind turbines to operate in
a noise-reduced operation mode.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relied on the following references:
Wobben US 6,688,841 B1 Feb. 10, 2004
Schliep US 2004/0081322 A1 Apr. 29, 2004
Pollet US 6,741,936 B2 May 25, 2004
Moore US 7,013,203 B2 Mar. 14, 2006

REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review (App. Br. 4) of the following rejections made
in the Final Rejection, dated May 20, 2010:
1. Claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Wobben and Schliep;
2. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Wobben,
Schliep, and Pollet; and
3. Claims 20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Wobben, Schliep, and Moore.

Appeal 2011-006385
Application 11/192,690

4

ANALYSIS
As noted by the Examiner, Appellant has neither argued nor addressed
the propriety of the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (Ans. 7).
This rejection was made in the Final Rejection. (Fin. Rej. 3-4).
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error regarding the
rejection of claim 11 under § 112. We summarily sustain this rejection.
Appellant essentially presents two arguments alleging error in the
§ 103 rejections by the Examiner:
(1) Schliep fails to disclose the “transfer function” called for in the
claims (e.g., App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2) (“Schliep does not describe or suggest
determining a transfer function that relates a first noise immission
measurement to a first noise emission measurement”); and
(2) the § 103 combination of Wobben in view of Schliep lacks a
rational underpinning (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3 ) (“there is ‘no rational
underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness.’”).
These same two allegations of error are asserted for all the rejections.
App. Br. 8 (“Claim 16 is submitted to be patentable over Wobben in view of
Schliep for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in relation to
Claim 1 above”); App. Br. 9 (“Claim 21 is submitted to be patentable over
Wobben in view of Schliep for substantially the same reasons as those set
forth in relation to Claim 1 above.”). Accordingly, all the § 103 rejections
will turn on our determination of these two arguments.
The Examiner clearly and comprehensively addressed Appellant’s
arguments in the Examiner’s Answer, particularly in the Response to
Arguments section of the Answer. Ans. 7-12. We adopt the Examiner’s
Appeal 2011-006385
Application 11/192,690

5

findings and reasoning as our own. We write below to further explain our
analysis.
Transfer Function
In relevant part, all the claims call for a “noise transfer function” that
“relates the first noise immission measurement to the first noise emission
measurement” (e.g., claim 1, App. Br. 14, Claims Appendix).
The Specification defines the terms “emission” and “immission.”
Spec. para., [0016]. As defined, emission “is a machinery or product noise
generation that is attributed [to this] machinery or product [and] can be
measured in the near field area to determine the corresponding generated
acoustic power (the measured quantity being the sound power level).” Id.
Immission “is the far field area noise impact, often measured and qualified
by noise map as a result of the combination of noise sources making noise in
the far field with respect to any previous existing background noise map.”
Id. As explained in the Specification, emission “is thus a source term,”
while immission “is the consequence of emission, i.e., the noise footprint or
impact within the reception area.” Id.
Appellant argues that a transfer function “would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to represent a
systematic relationship between at least two signals, here an input first noise
emission (or near field measurement) and an output first noise immission (or
far field measurement).” App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2 (“a ‘transfer
function’ as recited by Appellant is a systematic relationship between at least
two signals”).
As found by the Examiner, Schliep discloses a system that monitors
noise emissions from a sound source and determines the impact (i.e., the
Appeal 2011-006385
Application 11/192,690

6

immission) of the sound source at a remote location. Ans. 5. We agree with
the Examiner that this discloses a systematic relationship between two
signals, i.e., an input first noise emission (or near field measurement) and an
output first noise immission (or far field measurement), and this discloses a
transfer function as called for in the claims. Ans. 9.
Rational Underpinning
In arguing that the Examiner has failed to provide a rational
underpinning in support of the rejections, Appellant’s arguments take an
inappropriately narrow interpretation of Schliep’s disclosure and what it
would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology.
Reply Br. 3. Schliep states that an object of the disclosed invention is to
specify “a method for processing noise signals of a noise source in which a
noise emission caused by the noise source is detected and determined in a
particularly simple and reliable manner.” Schliep, para. [0004]. Schliep
provides two specific contexts for application of his disclosed invention.
One is a travelling vehicle, the other is operating a machine in a workshop.
Id. at para. [0001], [0002].
Appellant argues that “wind turbines cannot accelerate or decelerate
to new positions relative to the microphones.” Reply Br. 3. While we
accept this statement as true, it does not diminish the applicability of
Schliep. As the Examiner found, Schliep is concerned not only with a noise
source from a vehicle moving along the highway, but also with fixed
location noise sources, such as an industrial installation or a fan or an air-
conditioning system in a shopping center. Ans. 11. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that these fixed location noise sources are “akin to the
wind turbines of Wobben.” Id.
Appeal 2011-006385
Application 11/192,690

7

The rationale provided by the Examiner is that Wobben and Schliep
are both concerned with noise limits in residential or other statutorily
protected areas. Ans. 12. Use of the noise monitoring and locating system
of Schliep would identify underlying noise source contributors thereby
allowing for more efficient noise attenuation in the wind park of Wobben.
Id. As explained by the Examiner, this is the use of a known technique of
noise monitoring as disclosed in Schliep to improve noise monitoring in the
wind park turbines of Wobben. Thus, there is a clear and appropriate
rational underpinning provided by the Examiner to support the rejection.
Appellant does not point to any evidence that establishes that the claimed
invention is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we affirm the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls