13448617 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2018)

Ex Parte Enevoldsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 2018

13448617 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2018)

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. 13/448,617 04/17/2012 Peder Bay Enevoldsen 2011P03231US 4236 22116 7590 01/30/2018 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2018 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 PEDER BAY ENEVOLDSEN, JENS JORGEN OSTERGAARD KRISTENSEN, and CARSTEN THRUE Appeal 2016-008537 Application 13/448,617 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Peder Bay Enevoldsen et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4 and 6—20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-008537 Application 13/448,617 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention relates to “[a] spoiler for a rotor blade of a wind turbine.” Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A spoiler for a rotor blade of a wind turbine, comprising: a base member having a mounting face for mounting onto a surface of the rotor blade; and an aerodynamic member for detachably connecting onto the base member, wherein the aerodynamic member includes a connecting element for connecting to the base member, and an undulating element arranged to protrude in a direction upwardly from the base member mounted onto the surface of the rotor blade when the aerodynamic member is connected to the base member. REJECTIONS 1) Claims 1—3, 6—12, 14—16, and 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by van der Bos (US 7,909,576 Bl, issued Mar. 22, 2011). 2) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over van der Bos and Christ (WO 2009/003569 Al, published January 8, 2009) or Pipher (US 3,526,032, issued Sept. 1, 1970). 3) Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over van der Bos and either Petsche (US 2009/0274559 Al, published Nov. 5, 2009) or Fuglsang (WO 2010/066501 Al, published June 17, 2010). 4) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over van der Bos and Herr (2007/0065290 Al, published Mar. 22, 2007). 2 Appeal 2016-008537 Application 13/448,617 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 The resolution of this appeal revolves around the limitation in claim 1 of “an undulating element arranged to protrude in a direction upwardly from the base member.” (Emphasis added.) Independent claims 12 and 15 contain similar limitations. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that van der Bos anticipates independent claims 1, 12, and 15. Final Act. 10-13. Referring to Figures 6 to 9 of van der Bos, the Examiner finds that van der Bos discloses “an undulating element 112 arranged to protrude in a direction upwardly from the base member (both radially downstream of the base member towards the tips of 112, as well as stacked above the base member, which is radially upwardly from the case [sic] member).” Id. at 10. The Examiner provides an annotated copy of Figure 7 of van der Bos with arrows added to illustrate the alternative findings that element 112 protrudes upwardly from the base member. Id. at 12. Appellants first contend that van der Bos’s element 112 does not protrude upwardly but “merely extendTs] the surface of the rotor blade further downstream with regard to the trailing edge of the rotor blade.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing van der Bos, Fig. 7, 2:5—13). Appellants provide annotated versions of Figure 7 of van der Bos and Appellants’ Figure 6A in support of this contention. See id. at 7. Appellants’ second contention is that the Examiner’s finding that the tips 112 of element 110 are “stacked above the base member” is not supported by a specific disclosure of the term “stack” in van der Bos. Id. at 13. 3 Appeal 2016-008537 Application 13/448,617 The Examiner responds by maintaining the rejection and further explains that van der Bos’s “element 112 also has a degree of upward curvature in annotated figure 7 (note the rightmost annotation ‘protruding upwardly from base’).” Ans. 3^4. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 15. Van der Bos discloses “a rotor blade component 110 fastened to the rotor blade 22” by means of openings 134 and 136 in component 110 which engage buttons 122 that extend upward from the bottom of mounting plate 140. Van der Bos, 4:38, 8:37—38, Fig. 6. Rotor blade component 110 also comprises projections 112 which the Examiner finds correspond to the recited “undulating element.” Id. 4:65—66. When assembled to rotor blade 22, rotor blade component 110 is located below the top surface of buttons 122. See id. at Figs. 7, 8. Further, Figure 8 of van der Bos discloses that aerodynamic member 110 is parallel to the horizontal plane of mounting plate 140 at least up to the trailing edge 68 of rotor blade 22. Id. at Fig. 8. In the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 7 of van der Bos, the Examiner adds an arrow under the number 126 which shows that undulating element 112 remains parallel to mounting plate 140 beyond the trailing edge 68 of rotor blade 22. Final Act. 12. This annotation, thus, fails to support the Examiner’s finding that the “undulating element 112... has a degree of upward curvature.” Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner’s finding that aerodynamic member 110 is “stacked” on top of mounting plate 140 is not supported by van der Bos because element 110 is located below the top surface of buttons 122 which are part of mounting plate 140. The Examiner’s finding that van der Bos discloses “an undulating element arranged to protrude in a direction upwardly from the base member” is, thus, 4 Appeal 2016-008537 Application 13/448,617 not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 15. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—3, 6—11, 14—16, and 18—20, which depend from claims 1, 12, or 15, for the same reasons. Rejections 2—4 The Examiner rejects dependent claims 4, 13, and 17 based on van der Bos with additional disclosure from Christ, Pipher, Petsche, Fuglsang, or Herr. Final Act. 14—16. The Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure from Christ, Pipher, Petsche, Fuglsang, or Herr to cure the deficiencies in van der Bos stated above. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 13, and 17 for the same reasons stated above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4 and 6—10 is reversed. REVERSED 5