Ex Parte Obrecht et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

13477514 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/477,514 05/22/2012
96537 7590 09/12/2018
BEUS SE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE
Mail Stop AG
390 N. ORANGE A VE, SUITE 2500
ORLANDO, FL 32801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John M. Obrecht
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2011P24876US (738ABD) 2870
EXAMINER
LIAO, CHRISTINE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
portal@iplawfl.com
cqm@patentorlando.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN M. OBRECHT and PAUL F. MEDINA
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, RAEL YNN P. GUEST, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-17 and 19-21. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Wind Power
A/S, Denmark. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as relating to "a method and system
for wind-velocity field measurements on a wind farm to allow for operation
and control, performance analysis, and output power forecasting of a wind
farm." Spec. 1: 5-7. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added to
certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method implemented on a wind farm having a plurality
of spatially distributed wind turbines, comprising:
acquiring data via measurement instruments mounted on a
plurality of selected pairs of turbines of a wind farm, wherein the
instruments transmit an energy along a path between the
turbines of each selected pair, wherein the instruments measure
an influence of a wind speed on the energy to create the data, and
wherein each wind speed is a component of a respective full
wind velocity between the selected pairs of the turbines; and
determining a wind velocity field of the wind farm from
the data.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Smith et al.
("Smith")
Rogers et al.
("Rogers")
Kondo et al.
("Kondo")
US 2006/0179934 Al
US 2011/0295438 Al
US 8,332,077 B2
Aug. 17, 2006
Dec. 1, 2011
Dec. 11, 2012
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 17, 2016
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed February 14, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer dated June 15, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
August 15, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
Ambekar et al.
("Ambekar")
Bertolotti et al.
("Bertolotti")
US 2013/0166082 Al
US 2013/0228010 Al
REJECTIONS
June 27, 2013
Sep. 5,2013
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1-13, 17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Smith in view of Bertolotti, Rogers, and Kondo. Final
Act. 3.
Rejection 2. Claims 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Smith in view of Bertolotti, Rogers, and Kondo and further in view of
Ambekar. Id. at 22.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects each claim on appeal as obvious over Smith in
view of Bertolotti, Rogers, and Kondo ( with Ambekar also being applied to
claims 14--16). Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Smith discloses a
wind farm with a plurality of wind turbines and a wind measurement
instrument that transmits energy (through use of lidar (i.e., laser radar)
system 22), receives the reflected radiation from the lidar beam, and
determines a wind velocity field of the wind from the data. Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner finds that Smith does not explicitly disclose, for example,
claim 1 's recitations "between the turbines of each selected pair" and
"wherein each wind speed is a component of a respective full wind velocity
between the selected pairs of wind turbines." Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Bertolotti teaches measurement instruments
mounted on "selected pairs." Id. at 4--5. The Examiner finds that Figure 5
3
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
of Bertolotti illustrates "between each selected pair." Id. at 5. The
Examiner determines:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the Applicant's invention to modify the method of
determining a wind vectors using bistatic Lidar instruments of Smith
and mount the separate transmit and receive optics (Smith, paragraph
[0023]) of the bistatic instruments on selected pairs as taught by
Bertolotti to gather accurate wind property measurements over the
wind turbine farm.
Id. The Examiner also combines teachings from Rogers and Kondo to arrive
at mounting the wind speed instruments on turbines (per Rogers) and to
calculate wind speed as a component of full wind velocity (per Kondo). Id.
at 5---6.
Appellants argue that neither Smith nor Bertolotti teaches that
"instruments transmit an energy along a path between the turbines of each
selected pair" as claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 7. Factually, Appellants argue
that Smith's lidar transmission has a "substantially vertical look direction"
(Appeal Br. 7, citing Smith Fig. 3, ,r 25). The Examiner does not dispute
this point and instead relies on Bertolotti as meeting this recitation.
Appellants also argue that Bertolotti teaches "a vertical LIDAR
transmission and a backscattering to the opposite tower." Reply Br. 5.
Appellants annotate Bertolotti Figure 5, as reproduced below, to illustrate
this point.
4
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
Bertolotti Figure 5 is a schematic view of Bertolotti's meteorological
measurement arrangement. Bertolotti ,r 67. Appellants have annotated
Bertolotti Figure 5 above by adding arrows labelled to indicate upwards
LIDAR transmission and backscattering reflecting diagonally back down to
receiver 116.
A preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants' position
regarding the operation of Bertolotti. See, e.g., Bertolotti ,r 67 ("The first
beam 420 extends upwards in a vertical direction z .... Waves which are
emitted ... and which are scattered by means of atmospheric inhomogenities
... are received ... as back-scattered waves .... "). Indeed, the Examiner
does not dispute Appellants' factual understanding of Bertolotti. Rather, the
Examiner determines that Bertolotti' s upwards transmission and backscatter
nonetheless is a transmission of "an energy along a path between the
turbines of each selected pair" as recited in claim 1:
5
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
[R ]eferring to Appellant's claim 1 's limitation of the instruments
transmit an energy along a path between the turbines of each selected
pair, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is
taught by Bertolotti. As shown in FIG. 5 and described in paragraph
[0067] of Bertolotti, a first wave transmitter 115 mounted on a first
mast produces a first wave beam 420, which is at least partially
received by second wave receiver 530 which is mounted on a second
mast. Even though first wave beam 420 is generally transmitted
upwards, there exists an energy path between each of the selected
pair, and teaches the claim limitation.
Ans. 11. Appellants argue that the Examiner's claim interpretation in this
regard is unreasonably broad. Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4---6. We agree.
During prosecution, we construe patent claims based upon "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 the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
also Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLCv. Lee,_U.S._, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2145
(2016) (noting that the Patent Office has used the broadest reasonable
construction standard for more than 100 years). Our reviewing Court has
emphasized that "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term." Cf Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotes and citation omitted).
Although claims must be interpreted consistent with the Specification,
limitations from the Specification are not to be read into the claims. See,
e.g., E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Corn Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
6
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
Here, the Specification refers to, for example, measurement
instruments being "frequency-locked lasers pointed rigidly towards the other
turbine." Spec. 4:20-23. Such a configuration is illustrated by Figure 2 of
the Specification which we reproduce below.
FIG. 2
Figure 2 is an illustration of two turbines having laser-Doppler anemoetry
instruments measuring wind speed according to an embodiment of the
Specification. Spec. 3: 1-3. Similarly, Figures 4 and 9 of the Specification,
not reproduced here, illustrate how multiple turbines can be equipped with
outbound lasers and sensors. Spec. 5 :30-6 ("Each turbine 1 Oa, 1 Ob, 1 Oc is
now equipped with two outbound lasers (not shown), and two sets of optical
sensors (not shown), such that measurements can be made along each line
joining the neighboring turbines."). The additional "connecting paths"
enable "nested measurements [that] may be useful for following and
7
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
predicting the path of local wind gusts within the wind farm." Spec. 7: 17-
27.
In view of the context provided by the Specification, we agree with
Appellants that a system that directs energy upwards and detects backscatter
does not "transmit an energy along a path between the turbines of each
selected pair" as recited by claim 1. Spec. 11 (Claim App.). Rather, such a
system transmits energy away from other turbines (upwards), and the energy
reaches other turbines via backscatter.
Claim 1 does not require that the energy reach any particular
destination or even successfully travel along the path on which it has been
transmitted. Rather, the claim only requires that the energy be transmitted
along a path between turbines. Thus, we only need to consider whether the
direction in which the energy is transmitted is along a path between turbines.
Nevertheless, the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited
references teach or suggest this recitation once it is properly construed.
Indeed, transmitting in a direction vertically upward and relying only on
incidental backscatter cannot be transmitting along a path between turbines. 3
Moreover, because both Smith and Bertolotti transmit lidar vertically
and collect data regarding wind speeds at points above the transmitter, the
Examiner has not adequately explained how these systems would
nonetheless "measure an influence of a wind speed on the energy to create
3 Although the Specification only illustrates direct paths between turbines
(see e.g. Figure 9), we decline to read into the claim a requirement that the
"path" be a direct path between turbines without a clear recitation in the
claims directing us to do so. Yet, both Smith and Bertolotti only teach
transmitting vertically upwards and rely on incidental scatter rather than a
particular path.
8
Appeal2017-010664
Application 13/477,514
the data" where "each wind speed is a component of a respective full wind
velocity between the selected pairs of the turbines." Id. ( emphasis
added). We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 or
of claims depending from claim 1.
The other two independent claims on appeal include recitations
similar to those addressed above. For example, claim 17 recites
"transmitting a laser energy or a sonic energy along a plurality of paths
through air between wind turbines within a wind farm." Spec. 14 (Claim
App.). Claim 20 recites "measurement instruments operative to convey a
laser energy or a sonic energy along respective paths between the selected
pairs of turbines." Id. at 15. Therefore, for the reasons explained above, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 20 and claims
depending from these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-17 and 19-21.
REVERSED
9