Ex Parte Grubel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

13468640 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/468,640 05/10/2012 Brian C. Grubel 5013899.014US1 9344
128836 7590 03/01/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
WIBLIN, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
patentadmin @ B oeing. com
ipdocketing @ wbd-u s. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN C. GRUBEL
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1, 2, 4, 10-13, 15, 21, and 221 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Grandperret (WO 2008/060154 A3, pub. May 14, 2009), Gizara (US
1 Although, the statement of the rejection includes claims 6—8 and 17—20,
these claims were canceled in the Amendment filed July 27, 2015.
Accordingly, we understand their inclusion in the statement of this rejection
to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
6,956,300 B2, iss. Oct. 18, 2005), and Ricketts (CA 2,622,265, pub. Mar.
29, 2007).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for converting fluid
motion into electrical power. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis
added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for converting fluid motion into electrical power,
the system being deployable in a body of fluid and comprising:
a support structure including a generator assembly
configured to convert mechanical energy to electrical energy and
provide electric power from the electrical energy; and
a movable structure connected to the support structure and
including a canopy coupled to and extending from a base, the
canopy including first and second opposing major surfaces
joined by first and second opposing minor surfaces, the movable
structure being configured to generate mechanical energy for
conversion by the generator assembly during a power generation
phase of a power cycle in which the fluid motion acts on the
movable structure, the movable structure having three or more
degrees of freedom,
wherein the movable structure has a first configuration
during the power generation phase in which the canopy is
arranged with the first major surface facing a direction of fluid
motion, the first minor surface extending out from the base by
the first and second major surfaces, and the second minor surface
held against or proximate the base,
wherein the movable structure is reconfigurable from the
first configuration to a second, different configuration for a
recovery phase of the power cycle in which the movable structure
2 The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10-13, 15, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph for failure to comply with the enablement requirement is
withdrawn. Ans. 15.
2
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
has a lesser surface area normal to the flow of fluid than the
movable structure in the first configuration,
wherein reconfiguration of the movable structure includes
the first minor surface being caused by the fluid motion to move
in the direction of fluid motion and then downward toward the
base, and the second minor surface being caused to move along
the base opposite the direction of fluid motion, until the canopy
lies approximately against the base, at which point the movable
structure is in the second configuration,
wherein the body of fluid has a surface generally
perpendicular to a first axis and parallel with second and third
axes of a Cartesian coordinate system, and in which the fluid
motion has one or more of a first-axis component, second-axis
component or third-axis component, and
wherein the support structure includes a swivel structure
configured to swivel relative to the support structure and thereby
permit movement of the movable structure with the second-axis
component and third-axis component of the fluid motion, the
swivel structure being configured to swivel with the direction of
fluid motion and independent of movement of the movable
structure away from the support structure.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gizara US 6,956,300 B2 Oct. 18,2005
Ricketts WO 2007/034193 A33 Mar. 29, 2007
Grandperret WO 2009/060154 A3 May 14, 2009
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Grandperret, Gizara, and Ricketts disclose or
suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 6—7, 9—12. In
particular, the Examiner finds that “Ricketts discloses (Fig. 1) a system for
3 Equivalent of CA 2622265 A1.
3
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
converting fluid motion into electrical power” in which “reconfiguration of
the movable structure includes ... the second minor surface being caused to
move along the base opposite the direction of fluid motion, until the canopy
lies approximately against the base, at which point the movable structure is
in the second configuration.” Id. at 11 (citations omitted). Based on that
finding, the Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to substitute one moveable/reconfigurable structure for the
other to achieve the predictable result of converting fluid motion into
electrical power.” Final Act. 12.
Appellant contends that “Ricketts’ movable structure is not
reconfigurable from a first configuration to a second configuration” as set
forth in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. In support of this contention, Appellant
explains that “the second minor surface (105) of Ricketts’ movable structure
(2) does not move along the base (101) opposite the direction of fluid motion
until the canopy (2a) lies approximately against the base.” Id. (emphasis
omitted).
Responding to this argument, the Examiner construes the claim term
“against” to mean ‘“beside, near, or before’” and concludes that Ricketts’
“canopy is approximately beside the base.” Ans. 16 (citing Dictionary.com).
The Examiner further identifies the configuration in an annotated redacted
version of Ricketts’ Fig. 1 as corresponding to the claimed second
configuration. See id. This Figure is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
The Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1 is an annotated and redacted version of
Ricketts Figure 1A illustrating the kite portion of this Figure.
The Specification describes the claimed first and second
configurations in detail on pages 9-10. The Specification identifies
Appellant’s Figure 6e, reproduced infra, as illustrating the second
configuration wherein the canopy lies approximately against the base. See
Spec. 10:9.
5
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
/
*
IQS
136a
134a jf 134:
^ 130
136b
FIG. 6e
Figure 6e is a top view of the movable structure during one stage of a power
cycle. Spec. 4.
In construing claim terms, we apply “the broadest reasonable meaning
of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in [Appellant’s] specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, Appellant’s Figures 6a—6e inform us as to the
breadth of the claim term “against” by specifically identifying Figure 6e as
illustrating the second configuration where the canopy lies approximately
against the base. This configuration is very different from, for example, the
configuration shown in Appellant’s Figures 6c and 6d reproduced below,
which depict the canopy as it “moves downward toward the base” ( Spec.
10), not as it lies against the base:
6
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
!W -v
A /' *
x~ INV,X i \\ .iri
*' l \\ "x' \\
134b -- A
xxn....... :
// VA. i3=x
////
sa ■<.
K /i .■ 'ffl
\v, kb ‘ ^\,.v. r
134b '-'X........
108
136b
4 ii 5
\ |
V!
FIG.
Figures 6c and 6d are top views of the movable structure during stages of a
power cycle. Spec. 4.
Comparison of the second configuration illustrated in Appellant’s
Figure 6e with the annotated redacted reproduction of Ricketts’ Figure 1
identified by the Examiner as corresponding to the claimed second
configuration demonstrates that the Examiner’s construction of the claim
term “against” is overly broad. In fact, the latter figure resembles an
intermediate stage between the claimed first and second configurations such
as that illustrated by Appellant’s Figures 6c and 6d supra, as opposed to the
claimed second configuration. Specifically, the Specification states that the
movement depicted in Figures 6c and 6d “may continue until the canopy lies
approximately against the base, at which point the movable structure is in
the second configuration ... as shown in FIG. 6e.” Spec. 10.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4, 10, and 22.
7
Appeal 2017-002697
Application 13/468,640
Claim 11 also requires a second configuration wherein “the canopy
lies approximately against the base.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Thus,
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 suffers from the same deficiencies as
the rejection of claim 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 11, and its dependent claims 12, 13, 15, and 21 for
the same reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10-13, 15, 20, and 21 are
REVERSED.
REVERSED
8