Ex Parte Gerber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13746550 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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.
259281/GEC-684 5426
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VIET P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/746,550 01/22/2013 Brandon Shane Gerber
87853 7590 09/26/2017
Dority & Manning, PA and General Electric Company
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
09/26/2017 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 BRANDON SHANE GERBER and THOMAS FRANKLIN
PERLEY1
Appeal 2017-000634
Application 13/746,550
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JANE E.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Company.
Appeal 2017-000634
Application 13/746,550
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12, 14—18, and 20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A method for adjusting a pitch angle of a rotor blade
in a wind turbine, the method comprising:
monitoring an operational value of the wind
turbine, wherein the operational value is one of a wind
speed value, a wind direction value, a turbulence
intensity value, a generator rotor speed value, a generator
rotor acceleration value, a load signal value, or a weather
condition value;
providing the operational value to a controller, the
controller utilizing a proportional integral derivative
control algorithm to adjust the pitch angle;
adjusting a gain factor for the proportional integral
derivative control algorithm to a first gain value when the
operational value is within a first operational region,
wherein adjusting of the gain factor occurs before the
controller adjusts the pitch angle; and
adjusting a gain factor for the proportional integral
derivative control algorithm to a second gain value when
the operational value is within a second operational
region, wherein the second gain value is different from
the first gain value and the second operational region is
different from the first operational region, wherein
adjusting of the gain factor occurs before the controller
adjusts the pitch angle.
2
Appeal 2017-000634
Application 13/746,550
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Picheetal. US 6,278,899 B1 Aug. 21,2001
(hereafter “Piche”)
Mikhail et al. US 2005/0253396 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
(hereafter “Mikhail”)
Nagasaki US 2012/0061962 Mar. 15,2012
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—3, 7—12, 14—16, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mikhail in view of Nagasaki.
2. Claims 4—6 and 17—18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Mikhail in view Nagasaki as applied to
claims 1—3, 7—12, 14—16, and 20 above, and further in view of Piche.
ANALYSIS
Appellants have presented substantive arguments for the separate
patentability of claims 1 and 15 on appeal2. We select claim 1 as
representative of this grouping, and we thus address claim 1 in this appeal
consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject
2 On page 9 of the Answer, Appellants discuss claim 14 by relying upon the
same arguments presented for claims 1 and 15, and thus no separate
argument is presented for claim 14.
3
Appeal 2017-000634
Application 13/746,550
matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied art.
Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the
Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Rejections 1—2
The Examiner finds that Mikhail discloses most of the claim elements
and these are explicitly identified on pages 2—3 of the Final Office Action
(which we incorporate herein).
The Examiner states that Mikhail does not disclose the following
claim elements (we list only the elements dispositive of the issue in this
case):
i. (from claim 1) adjusting a gain factor to a first gain value when
the operational value is within a first operational region; and adjusting
a gain factor to a second gain value when the operational value is
within a second operational region, wherein the second gain value is
different from the first gain value and the second operational region is
different from the first operational region.
Final Act. 3^4.
The Examiner relies upon Nagasaki for teaching:
i. (from claim 1) adjusting a gain factor to a first gain value (Fig. 10,
gain 1) when the operational value is within a first operational region
(0 to first threshold); and adjusting a gain factor to a second gain
value (gain 2) when the operational value is within a second
operational region (region after second threshold), wherein the second
gain value (2) is different from the first gain value (1) and the second
operational region (region after second threshold) is different from
the first operational region (0 to first threshold);
4
Appeal 2017-000634
Application 13/746,550
Final Act. 4.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
used the teaching of the gain controller as disclosed by Nagasaki to the PID
controller disclosed by Mikhail, and that one would have been motivated to
do so, to reduce load on the wind turbine during strong winds. Nagasaki,
198. Final Act. 4—5.
Appellants argue that the references, alone or in combination, fail to
disclose “adjustment of a gain factor based on an operation value”, and the
adjustment “occurs before adjusting of a pitch angle”. Appeal Br. 4—5. We
are unpersuaded by this argument for the reasons provided by the Examiner
in the record, discussed below.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated reply made on pages 2—3 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains how in fact these recitations are
taught by the applied art. The Examiner states that in Figure 6A of Mikhail,
an operation value (generator rotor measured rpm 607) is inputted into PID
controller 609 to adjust the gain factor before the pitch angle is adjusted in
variable pitch control 610. The Examiner explains that Mikhail fails to
disclose adjusting the gain factor using a PID control algorithm within a first
and second operational region. The Examiner explains that this PID control
algorithm within a first and second operational region can be seen in Figure
6 of Appellants’ Specification. The Examiner states that Nagasaki was used
a secondary reference to teach use of PID control algorithm within a first
and second operational region, which is disclosed in Nagasaki’s Figure 10,
to reduce load on the wind turbine during strong winds. Nagasaki, 198.
5
Appeal 2017-000634
Application 13/746,550
Appellants also argue that the alleged operational value of Nagasaki
(pitch-angle command value) is an output variable rather an input variable.
Appeal Br. 5—6.
However, we agree with the Examiner’s stated reply made on page 3
of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner points out that the operational value
of Nagasaki is also inputted into a gain controller (Figure 9, 90) in order to
adjust the gain.
Appellants also argue that the operational value of Nagasaki is not one
of the operational values recited in claims 1 and 15. Appeal Br. 5—6.
We are in agreement with the Examiner’s stated reply made on page 3
of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner reiterates that the claims
were rejected in view of the combination of Mikhail and Nagasaki, and
Mikhail does disclose one of the specific operational values such as the
generator rotor speed value (Figure 6, generator rotor measured rpm 607).
The Examiner explains that Nagasaki was used as a teaching reference for
the PID control algorithm within a first and second operational region which
does have an operational value as an input. The Examiner explains that the
operational value of Nagasaki can also correlate to the operational values
recited in the claims since the pitch angle depends on the wind speed and
generator rotor speed. Ans. 3.
Appellants also argue that Mikhail does not disclose an operational
value as an input to a gain calculator. Appeal Br. 6—7.
We are in agreement with the Examiner’s stated reply made on page 4
of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that Figure 6 A of Mikhail
shows that measured rpm 607 is an input into PID controller 609. The
Examiner also refers to 1151 of Mikhail for disclosing that the PID
6
Appeal 2017-000634
Application 13/746,550
controller adjusts the gains as a function of the speed error input. The
Examiner explains that the speed error input is the difference between
operating rpm set point (Figure 6, 608) and measured rpm 607. The
Examiner also refers to Figure 10A in this regard. Ans. 4.
No reply brief has been filed in response to the Examiner’s response
to the Appellants’ positions set forth in the Appeal Brief.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1 and 2.
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
7