Ex Parte Grabau

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2016

12086649 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016)

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.
12/086,649 10/27/2008 Peter Grabau 31891U 1698
20529 7590 12/09/2016
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
DEHNE, AARON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2016 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):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER GRABAU
Appeal 2016-000105
Application 12/086,6491
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 12—152 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnston3 in view of Herr4 and Grabau ‘0605 and rejecting
claims 8—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnston in view of
Herr and Grabau ‘060 and further in view of Grabau ‘500.6
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is LM Glasfiber A/S. Br. 3.
2 Claim 5 was canceled via an amendment dated March 4, 2013 and is not before
us on appeal.
3 Johnston et al., US 4,976,587, issued Dec. 11, 1990 (“Johnston”).
4 Herr, US 2007/0065290 Al, published Mar. 22, 2007 (“Herr”).
5 Grabau et al., US 2004/0115060 Al, published June 17, 2004 (“Grabau ‘060”).
6 Grabau, WO 95/19500 Al, published July 20, 1995 (“Grabau ‘500”).
Appeal 2016-000105
Application 12/086,649
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).7
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to wind turbine blades and methods of
designing wind turbine blades (see, e.g., claims 1 and 14). Appellant discloses that
blades for aircraft, wind turbines, and other devices include a series of profiles that
are cross-sections of the blade in various positions along the length of the blade.
Spec. p. 1,11. 10-12. Areas between the different profiles are interpolated or
blended so a smooth transition is made between profiles. Id. at p. 1,11. 17—20.
There are problems with the rear edge of a blade, however, such as exposure to
large fatigue loads, which leads to wear and repair of the rear edge. Id. at p. 1,11.
22—23, 29—30. Appellant discloses a blade having a series of profiles in which the
profile describing at least a portion of the rear edge is the same. Id. at p. 2,1. 29 to
p. 3,1. 2. This enables the rear edge to be manufactured in a quick and inexpensive
manner. Id. at p. 3,11. 3—8. Moreover, the rear edge may be made of a different
material than the blade, may be simple to replace when it is damaged or worn, and
may be made with a higher degree of accuracy than when the rear edge is made as
part of the blade. Id. at p. 3,11. 12—14, 19—20; p. 8,1. 31 to p. 9,1. 2.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief.8 The limitations at issue are italicized.
7 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Specification filed June 17, 2008 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action mailed July 9, 2014 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed
Dec. 9, 2014 (Br.), and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 23, 2015 (Ans.).
8 Br. Claims Appendix 17.
2
Appeal 2016-000105
Application 12/086,649
1. A wind turbine blade wherein at least a portion of the blade is
described by an airfoil family, the airfoil family comprising several
different airfoils of differing sizes describing the desired outline of said
wind turbine blade transversally to its longitudinal axis, characterised
in that:
the different sized airfoils in the airfoil family have an identical
airfoil rear trailing edge profde shape and size describing at least a
portion of the desired rear trailing edge of the blade, wherein the shape
of the airfoil rear trailing edge profde is curvilinear and wherein the
wind turbine blade has an identical airfoil rear trailing edge profile
shape and size along the length of said portion of the blade.
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection over Johnston in view of Herr and Grabau ‘060
Claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 12—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnston in view of Herr and Grabau ‘060. We select claim 1 as
representative for discussing the issues on appeal.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellant has demonstrated a
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Johnston, Herr,
and Grabau ‘060 would have suggested a wind turbine blade described by an
airfoil family having the airfoil rear trailing edge profile recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds Johnston discloses a wind turbine blade in which at least
a portion of the blade is described by an airfoil family, wherein the airfoil family
includes several different airfoils of different sizes that describe the outline of the
blade, including a rear trailing edge. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds Johnston
does not disclose that the rear trailing edge has a rear trailing edge profile identical
in shape and size along a length of a portion of the blade or that the shape of the
rear trailing edge profile is curvilinear. Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds Herr discloses an airfoil having a rear trailing edge
profile that is identical in shape and size along a length of a portion of the blade,
3
Appeal 2016-000105
Application 12/086,649
citing the acoustic flap 136 disclosed by Herr. Id. The Examiner finds Grabau
‘060 discloses a flap having a rear trailing edge profile that is curvilinear. Id. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use the rear trailing edge of
Herr to reduce acoustic noise generated by a blade, as disclosed by Herr, and
modify the shape of the flap to be curvilinear to achieve maximum power output as
disclosed by Grabau ‘060. Id. at 3^4.
Appellant argues that Herr and Grabau ‘060 “each disclose add-on flaps
attached at the trailing edge of the blade.” Br. 9. In contrast, Appellant argues that
the trailing edge in Appellant’s invention “is not provided as an add-on to a wind
turbine blade airfoil profile, but instead as a section of the profile itself.” Id. at 11
(emphasis omitted). In view of these arguments, Appellant argues modifying
Johnston in view of Herr and Grabau ‘060 would result in a flap attached to the
blade, which would not provide the airfoil rear trailing edge profile of claim 1. Id.
at 13-14.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains that when the
flap of Herr is attached to a blade body it becomes an integral part of an airfoil that
includes both the blade body and the flap. Ans. 5. More specifically, the
Examiner finds the flap of Herr is the rear trailing edge of an airfoil (i.e., “it is the
edge of the airfoil which passes through the air last during operation” (id.)) and
finds Herr discloses the flap may be “‘integrally or monolithically formed into the
blade body 130’” if desired. Id', see also Herr 121 (disclosing an embodiment in
which “the flap 136 may be integrally or monolithically formed into the blade body
130 if desired”). Thus, in the modification proposed by the Examiner, the blade of
Johnston includes the flap of Herr as an integral part, with the flap being the rear
4
Appeal 2016-000105
Application 12/086,649
trailing edge of the blade.9 Ans. 6. Significantly, Appellant has not responded to
the explanation and findings presented by the Examiner in the Answer and thus has
not demonstrated reversible error.
Appellant further argues there would have been no motivation to combine
Herr and Grabau ‘060 with the disclosure of Johnston because Herr is directed to
reducing the acoustic noise of a blade and Grabau ‘060 is directed to maximizing
the power output of a blade. Br. 9. This argument is unpersuasive. As stated by
the Examiner, Appellant has not shown that noise reduction and power output are
mutually exclusive or otherwise provided any explanation or reasoning to support
their argument. Ans. 5—A.
Appellant does not present any arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claims 2—4, 6, 7, and 12—15. Br. 14. Therefore, the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 12—15 over the combination of Johnston, Herr,
and Grabau ‘060 is sustained.
Rejection over Johnston, Herr, Grabau ‘060, and Grabau ‘500
Claims 8—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Johnston in view of Herr and Grabau ‘060 and further in view of Grabau ‘500.
Appellant does not present any arguments in support of the separate patentability
of claims 8—10. Rather, Appellant contends Grabau ‘500 does not remedy the
deficiencies of the references applied in the rejection of claim 1. Br. 15. For the
reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that
require curing by Grabau ‘500. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 8—10
9 In the rejection on appeal, the Examiner further modifies the shape of the flap (or
rear trailing edge of the blade) to be curvilinear based on the teachings in Grabau
‘060.
5
Appeal 2016-000105
Application 12/086,649
over the combination of Johnston, Herr, Grabau ‘060, and Grabau ‘500 is also
sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
6