Ex Parte Stiesdal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2017

13222540 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
13/222,540 08/31/2011 Henrik Stiesdal 2011P08321US 5599
22116 7590 07/31/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
BRUMFIELD, SHANIKA M
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2017 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 HENRIK STIESDAL, JASON STEGE,
SOEREN OEMANN LIND, and FARSHID ARMAN
Appeal 2016-002731
Application 13/222,5401
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 7—10, 12, and 14—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002731
Application 13/222,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to “[a]n arrangement and a method to
prevent a collision of a flying animal, like a bird or a bat, with a wind
turbine . . . Spec. 3:32—34.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized.
1. An arrangement to prevent a collision of a flying animal
with a wind turbine comprising:
a camera-system comprising a first camera and a second
camera, which is arranged at a wind turbine and generates a
plurality of images of an environment of the wind turbine, the
plurality of images defining a panoramic image of the wind
turbine environment primarily along a horizontal plane about the
camera-system;
an evaluation system, which is coupled with the camera-
system, evaluating the plurality of images to detect a flying
animal within the environment of the wind turbine; and
a warning system, which is coupled with the evaluation
system, generating a warning signal when the flying animal is
detected by the evaluation system,
wherein the first camera is configured to generate
panoramic images of the wind turbine environment,
wherein the second camera is configured to generate
images of a section of the wind turbine environment,
wherein the first camera and second camera are spaced
vertically and arranged at a nacelle of the wind turbine, the
second camera being mounted such that the second camera is
configured to be positioned according to a direction of the flying
animal, and
wherein the panoramic images and section-images are
evaluated by the evaluation system to identify a species of the
flying animal.
2
Appeal 2016-002731
Application 13/222,540
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1, 7—10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sliwa (US 2008/0298962 Al, Dec. 4, 2008), Sherony
(US 2006/0178830 Al, Aug. 10, 2006), Ahiska (US 2006/0056056 Al, Mar.
16, 2006), and Sharonova (US 2009/0153656 Al, June 18, 2009).
2. Claims 14—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sliwa, Sherony, Ahiska, Sharonova, Podolsky (US
7,315,799 Bl, Jan. 1, 2008), and Anderson (US 3,660,846, May 2, 1972).
3. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sliwa, Sherony, Ahiska, Sharonova, Podolsky, Anderson,
and Sands (US 2011/0030333 Al, Feb. 10, 2011).
4. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sliwa, Sherony, Ahiska, Sharonova, and Mori (WO
2009/102001 Al, Aug. 20, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue claims 1, 7—10, 12, and 14—19 as a group. App. Br.
7. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, with claims 7—10, 12,
and 14—19 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The disputed claim limitation recites “wherein the first camera and
second camera are spaced vertically and arranged at a nacelle of the wind
turbine.” The Examiner finds Sliwa teaches cameras spaced vertically,
except that the cameras are located on the tower of the wind turbine or are
ground mounted rather than arranged at a nacelle of the wind turbine. Final
Act. 6; see also Ans. 2 (citing Sliwa Fig. 3 and 1 51). The Examiner finds
Sharonova teaches a camera system arranged at the nacelle of a wind
3
Appeal 2016-002731
Application 13/222,540
turbine. Final Act. 8 (citing Sharonova 123). The Examiner finds the
combination of Sliwa and Sharonova would result in the disputed limitation
of two cameras spaced vertically arranged at a nacelle of the wind turbine.
Final Act. 8—9.
Appellants argue “Sliwa may show cameras caml and cam2 spaced
vertically, but caml is a ground based detector.” App. Br. 6. And according
to Appellants “Sharonova . . . merely notes that cameras may be mounted at
various locations within or on a nacelle of a wind turbine.” Id. Appellants
contend:
As Sliwa only teaches spaced cameras with one camera
being ground based/ground mounted, and Sharonova merely
teaches that cameras may be mounted at various locations within
or on a nacelle, one of ordinary skill. . . would have not arrived
at Appellant’s claim feature to arrange a plurality of cameras
vertically spaced at a nacelle of the wind turbine as claimed by
the Appellant.
App. Br. 6.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants admit that
Sliwa “may show cameras caml and cam2 spaced vertically” and also admit
that Sharonova “notes that cameras may be mounted at various locations
within or on a nacelle of a wind turbine.”2 App. Br. 6. The disputed
limitation requires nothing more than the combination of these two
teachings. Appellants provide no reasoning or evidence as to why one of
2 In their Reply Brief, Appellants appear to raise a dispute as to whether
Sliwa teaches cameras spaced vertically. See Reply Br. 3. But even here
they admit that “cameras CAM1 and CAM2 may be illustrated as spaced
vertically ... in FIG. 3.” Id. Nevertheless, to the extent Appellants dispute
the Examiner’s findings concerning Sliwa, Appellants have waived such
arguments, having not raised them in the initial Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2014).
4
Appeal 2016-002731
Application 13/222,540
ordinary skill would not have arrived at the disputed limitation, given the
presence of the requisite teachings in the prior art. See App. Br. 6. Without
such reasoning, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding the disputed limitation.
Appellants further argue “the combination of Sliwa and Ahiska is
improper because the Office Action did not provide any reasoning to support
the combination of Sliwa and Ahiska.” App. Br. 6. Appellants assert the
reasoning for the combination is present only in Appellants’ disclosure and,
thus, the Examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight in combining
Sliwa with Ahiska. App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds that it would have
been obvious to combine Sliwa with Ahiska:
[I]n order for the first camera to be configured to generate
panoramic images and the second camera to be configured to a
zoomed field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to make such a modification because the
modification provides for simultaneous capture of a wide area
and region of interest.
Ans. 4—5 (citing Ahiska 114).
With this response, the Examiner has articulated a reason with a
rational underpinning for combining Ahiska’s two cameras (one a wide area
camera and a second zoom camera) with Sliwa’s system, in order to
simultaneously monitor a wide area while also capturing a specific region of
interest. This reason stems from Ahiska’s disclosure (Ahiska 114), not the
Appellants’ Specification; thus, the Examiner has not engaged in
impermissible hindsight as Appellants argue.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time “Ahiska does
not disclose a camera generating panoramic images, but wide-angle images,”
and that “there is a difference between wide-angle images and panoramic
5
Appeal 2016-002731
Application 13/222,540
images.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants have waived these arguments by not
presenting them in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2014).
Moreover, Appellants’ own Specification describes a panoramic camera as
“a camera that is configured to provide images that cover a wide angle in
one direction of the image provided.” Spec. 5:5—8. Appellants’
Specification goes on to explain “[a] wide angle image provided by the
panoramic camera is referred to as a panoramic image.” Spec. 5:15—16. In
light of this description, we find Ahiska’s teaching of the use of a wide angle
camera would have also taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill the use
of a panoramic camera.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 7—10, 12, and 14—19 over the collective teachings of the cited references.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7—10, 12, and 14—19 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6