Ex Parte Tarnowski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2018

14509633 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/509,633 10/08/2014
13923 7590 07/25/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP / Vestas
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
German Claudio Tarnowski
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.
VEST/0088USP2 (070131) 1060
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, THOMAS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2018 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):
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERMAN CLAUDIO TARNOWSKI
Appeal2017-007991
Application 14/509,633
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 2, 3, and 5-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed October 8, 2014
("Spec."); the Final Action mailed August 3, 2016 ("Final Act."); the
Advisory Action mailed October 3, 2016 ("Adv. Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed February 3, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed March
13, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed May 4, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant identifies Vestas Wind Systems A/S as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007991
Application 14/509,633
The claims are directed to wind turbines providing grid support.
Claim 2, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
2. A wind turbine for connection to an electrical grid, the wind
turbine comprising:
a rotor with blades coupled to an electrical generator; and
a controller configured to:
increase, in response to an event, an electrical
output power from the wind turbine for a duration of an
overproduction period using kinetic energy stored in the
rotor thereby decreasing a rotational speed of the rotor,
wherein the event indicates a need to increase the
electrical output power from the wind turbine to the
electrical grid to support the stability of the electrical
grid, and
after increasing the electrical output power and
before the rotational speed of the rotor reaches a
predetermined minimum value, accelerate the rotor for a
duration of a recovery period to a previous rotational
speed while outputting at least a predetermined minimum
electrical power to the electrical grid, wherein the
controller is configured to control the wind turbine such
that the predetermined minimum electrical power output
to the electrical grid during the recovery period is at
least 80% of an electrical operating power which was
supplied to the electrical grid during a normal operation
period prior to the overproduction period.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2017-007991
Application 14/509,633
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the follow prior art in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Fortmann, US 2007/0085343 Al, published Apr. 19, 2007
N.R. Ullah et al., Temporary Primary Frequency Control
Support by Variable Speed Wind Turbines-Potential and
Applications, 23 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
(May 2008)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of rejections of
claims under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows: (1) claims 2, 3, 5-14, 16, and 17
over Fortmann, and (2) claim 15 over Fortmann in view of Ullah. Final Act.
3-9; App. Br. 10-14.
OPINION
Appellant argues the claims as a group. App. Br. 10-14. We select
claim 2 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 3 and 5-17
will stand or fall with our analysis of claim 2.
The focus of the disagreement between the Examiner and Appellant is
whether Fortmann teaches or suggests the limitation:
accelerat[ing] the rotor for a duration of a recovery period to a
previous rotational speed while outputting at least a
predetermined minimum electrical power to the electrical grid,
wherein the controller is configured to control the wind turbine
such that the predetermined minimum electrical power output
to the electrical grid during the recovery period is at least 80%
of an electrical operating power which was supplied to the
electrical grid during a normal operation period prior to the
overproduction period.
3
Appeal2017-007991
Application 14/509,633
App. Br. 10-12; Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that Fortmann discloses "accelerat[ing] the rotor
for a duration of a recovery period to a previous rotational speed while
outputting at least a predetermined minimum electrical power to the
electrical grid." Final Act. 4. The Examiner initially bases this finding on
Fortmann's claim 19, which depends from claim 18. Id. Claim 18 requires,
in part, "taking the excessive power off from the kinetic energy of the rotor
in response to an occurrence of a limit value or fault signal," and claim 19
further requires "determining a minimum rotational speed and automatically
ending the taking-off of the excessive power when the minimum speed is
reached." Fortmann, claims 18 and 19. The Examiner finds that "since the
taking off of excess power reduces the speed of the rotor, it is inherent that
stopping [the taking off of excess power] will reaccelerate the rotor." Final
Act. 4. The Examiner further finds that Fortmann discloses, "the controller
is configured to control the wind turbine such that there is a predetermined
minimum output power outputted during the recovery period," citing
paragraph 99 of Fortmann. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner identifies Figure 1 of Fortmann as
supporting that the wind turbine outputs at least a minimum output power
during the recovery period. Ans. 3--4. Fortmann's Figure 1 is reproduced
below:
4
Appeal2017-007991
Application 14/509,633
Power in kW
2000 ~-• ... , •r~OPO ,ru, •• .... ,.,._,,H•• ooono I ri< •••-•••,••--~•••-,.OU ··~·L• ••• • -~ ......... ,, .. ,.--~-·~·- .-.,,, ~·-- ,..,,. ••• p:
t ; ~
1ll0~ ...• , .............. ,.,. ......... .J ........... ____ . .-...... ,,,. .... :. ...... -.-.---·········-- .... i . i •
! .,......-""!
100Q -····· .. ··--·----···------~--........ - ................ , ... ]---·······-·····--:;7".:'.:. .... 1
: ! / ~
1400 _.,._ •r• ·•~••••••••..,••• ••---·~••••\ ••••• •,• -~----•••••,,..,.,•-how,; ... ~••"• •• ,J'~.<;,.J ••, •••••••" -• ,, ••\
! ' / BP1'
1200 j . . /{/ -nP:t -------!
iOOO _ _,.,., ... ----·····-········'.-·--···--·---.. ,,., /···- -·'.····-··
Figure 1 shows a characteristic of a wind turbine of Fortmann.
Fortmann ,r 63. Fortmann discloses that "[i]f the reserve power is activated
at the operating point designated by APl (1780 rpm, 1050 kW), the
rotational speed of the wind turbine, with an assumed constant wind velocity
of 10 mis, drops to the operating point AP2 (1580 rpm, 975 kW) since (for a
limited time) more power is fed into the system than can be taken up by the
wind." Id. ,r 67. Further, with respect to Figure 1, Fortmann teaches that at
high wind velocities, "a drop in speed by 200 rpm leads to a worse operating
point. The power which can be fed into the system at this operating point
(AP2) is distinctly below the power which can be fed in at nominal speed
(APl)." Id. ,r 93.
The Examiner interprets Fortmann's Figure 1 as indicating that APl is
the point at which the controller receives a signal to activate reserve power,
excess power is taken off from the rotor, decreasing the rotational speed of
5
Appeal2017-007991
Application 14/509,633
the rotor until operating point AP2, and excess take-off of power is stopped
at AP2. Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that Fortmann fails to teach that the wind turbine
outputs at least a predetermined minimum electrical power to the electrical
grid during the recovery period. App. Br. 11. Appellant contends that the
Examiner's interpretation of Fortmann's Figure 1 is incorrect. Reply Br. 2.
Upon review of Fortmann, we agree with Appellant. Fortmann's
claim 19 recites "automatically ending the taking-off of the excessive power
when the minimum speed is reached," but this does not teach anything about
a recovery period, re-accelerating the rotor during a recovery period, or
outputting a minimum electrical power to the electrical grid during a
recovery period. In addition, Fortmann teaches that AP2 is a point at which
the rotational speed of the wind turbine has dropped by 200 rpm (from 1780
rpm to 1580 rpm), but does not disclose that AP2 is the point at which
excess take-off power is stopped and the rotor reaccelerated. See Fortmann
,r 93. Thus, the Examiner errs in finding that Fortmann teaches or suggests
to "accelerate the rotor for a duration of a recovery period to a previous
rotational speed while outputting at least a predetermined minimum
electrical power to the electrical grid." See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
ofunpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
\Vhen the references cited by the Examiner fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Here, the Examiner errs in
finding that claim 2's limitations are obvicms over the cited references;
6
Appeal2017-007991
Application 14/509,633
therefore, we do not sustain the rejection. For the same reasons as given
above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 5----17.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-17 is reversed.
REVERSED
7