Ex Parte Stege

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

13171785 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/171,785 06/29/2011
22116 7590 12/30/2015
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason Stege
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.
2010P08785US 6120
EXAMINER
GUPTA, YOGENDRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 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 JASON STEGE
Appeal2014-000998
Application 13/171,785
Technology Center 1700
Before CHARLES F. WARREN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 13-16, 18-22, 29, and 30 of
Application 13/171,785 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2 as indefinite and 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (February 5, 2013). Appellant 1 seeks
reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-000998
Application 13/171,785
BACKGROUND
The '785 Application describes a negative mold for casting of wind
turbine blades. Spec. 1. In particular, the '785 Application describes a
negative mold-also called a female mold---comprised of supporting
structure and a plurality of foam blocks. Id. at 3--4. Each foam block used
to build up the negative mold is selected from a predetermined number of
different types of foam blocks, each of which has a predetermined size and
shape. Id. at 3.
Claim 13 is representative of the '785 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
13. A negative mold for casting a blade of a wind turbine
component, the negative mold, comprising:[2J
a support structure; and
a plurality of foam blocks each comprising a top side, a
bottom side opposite the top side and plurality of lateral sides,
each bottom side of the plurality of foam blocks are mounted to
the support structure such that a common surface contour of the
top sides of the plurality of foam blocks defines an outer
surface of the wind turbine component, which is to be casted,
wherein each foam block of the plurality of foam blocks
is taken from a predetermined number of different types of
foam blocks, each of the different types of foam block is defined
by a predetermined foam block size and foam block shape, l3J
2 For the purpose of this opinion, we interpret the preamble of claim 13 as if
the superfluous comma were omitted and the preamble read: "A negative
mold for casting a blade of a wind turbine component, the negative mold
comprising: .... " If the prosecution of the '785 Application continues,
Appellant should consider whether an amendment is appropriate.
3 For the purpose of this opinion, we interpret this phrase as if it read:
"wherein each of the different types of foam block is defined by a
predetermined foam block size and foam block shape," "each of the different
(Cont'd)
2
Appeal2014-000998
Application 13/171,785
wherein at least one lateral side surface of each of the
plurality of foam blocks includes a three dimensional contour
for adjoining to lateral side surface, which includes a
complementary dimensional, of the foam block mounted
adjacently on the support structure.[4J
App. Br. 11 (emphasis added).
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains5 the following rejection:
1. Claims 13-16, 19-22, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Corzine6 and
Hawkins. 7 Final Act. 3.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection solely on the basis of
the limitations of claim 13. App. Br. 5-9. We, therefore, select claim 13 as
types of foam block being defined by a predetermined foam block size and
foam block shape," or "each of the different types of foam block having a
predetermined foam block size and foam block shape." If prosecution of the
'785 Application continues, Appellant should consider whether an
amendment is appropriate.
4 For the purpose of this opinion, we interpret this limitation as if it read:
"wherein at least one lateral side surface of each of the plurality of foam
blocks includes a three dimensional contour for adjoining to a lateral side
surface, which includes a complementary dimensional contour, of the foam
block mounted adjacently on the support structure." If prosecution of the
'785 Application continues, Appellant should consider whether an
amendment is appropriate.
5 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2.
Advisory Action (February 26, 2013).
6 US 3,544,417, issued December 1, 1970.
7 US 4,411,939, issued October 25, 1983.
3
Appeal2014-000998
Application 13/171,785
representative of the group of claims rejected as unpatentable over the
combination of Corzine and Hawkins. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Furthermore, claim 13 is the only independent claim on appeal. Thus, we
limit our discussion to claim 13; the remaining claims stand or fall with
claim 13.
We reverse the rejection of claim 13. In particular, the Examiner's
conclusion that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is based upon
multiple erroneous findings of fact. Due to these errors, the rejection must
be reversed.
For example, the Examiner found that Corzine described a modular
assembly consisting of a support structure 118 and a plurality of foam blocks
116 mounted to the support structure 118 such that a common surface
contour 130 of the plurality foam blocks defines an outer surface of the cast
product. Final Act. 3 (citing Corzine Figure 12; col. 9, 11. 20-25).
r-T""i1 T"""1 • , 1. '1 ,... 1. 1 •1 •
l ne 1::1,Xammer s renance upon rnese nnamgs as aescnomg or
suggesting a portion of claim 13 's subject matter is inconsistent with the
claim language and with Corzine's Specification. In particular, Corzine
does not describe a negative mold comprised of foam blocks. Rather, as the
Examiner acknowledges, Corzine discloses an assembly of foam cores
positioned within a fiberglass structure. Corzine col. 1, 11. 13-16. The
portion of Corzine' s apparatus that the Examiner identifies as corresponding
to the supporting structure is identified in Corzine as mold 118. See, e.g., id.
at col. 9, 11. 20-23. Corzine further states that mold 118 has a molding
surface 130 which defines the surface of the product made by the mold. Id.
at col. 9, 11. 38--45. The Examiner, therefore, erred by finding that the top
surface of the foam blocks 116 defines the common surface contour 130.
4
Appeal2014-000998
Application 13/171,785
Furthermore, claim 13 requires that the bottom of the foam blocks be
attached to the support and that the top surface of the foam blocks defines
the "common surface contour." The Examiner's findings, however, require
that the same side of the plurality of foam cores 116 both be attached to
"support" 118 and defined the "common surface contour" 130. Final Act. 3.
These findings, therefore, are inconsistent with claim 13 's language.
In view of these and other, similar, factual errors underlying the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness, we reverse.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 13-
16, 18-22, 29, and 30 as unpatentable over the combination of Corzine and
Hawkins.
REVERSED
bar
5