VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS A/S

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2020

14758654 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2020)

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.
14/758,654 06/30/2015 Samuel Robinson VWS-707US 5466
83583 7590 04/24/2020
Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Vestas Wind Systems)
441 Vine Street
2700 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202
EXAMINER
PAGE, HANA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2020 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):
mhines@whe-law.com
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUEL ROBINSON
Appeal 2019-004237
Application 14/758,654
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Frederiksen (US 2010/0304170 A1; published Dec. 2,
2010) in view of Neuleib (US 2002/0046543 A1; published Apr. 25, 2002).3

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed June 30, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated May 17, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s
Answer dated Mar. 8, 2019 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Vestas Wind
Systems A/S. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-004237
Application 14/758,654

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to the Specification, wind turbine blades typically are
produced by laying a fiber or reinforcement material in a mold and using an
infusion or a resin transfer process to impregnate the material with a resin.
Spec. 1, last para. To position the fiber material, an operator must have
access to the mold sides. Id. at 2:1–2. Because the mold’s vertical
dimensions often exceed several meters, operator access to all areas of the
mold can be difficult. Id. at 2:6–8. To address this problem, the invention
provides a method of producing a wind turbine blade that allows an operator
to easily climb steep, inclined mold surfaces without causing damage to the
mold. Id. at 2:10–14. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of producing a wind turbine blade,
comprising:
providing a mold of a desired shape, the mold having a
longitudinal direction and inner walls that define an inclined
surface;
providing one or more devices for allowing an operator
to climb up the inclined surface of the inner walls of the mold,
the one or more devices configured to conform to a curvature
profile of the inclined surface of the inner walls of the mold;
fastening the one or more devices to the mold away from
the inner walls so that the one or more devices hang down
along the inclined surface of the inner walls of the mold without
further fixation of the one or more devices to the inclined
surface;
laying one or more layers of reinforcement or foam
material onto the inner walls of the mold; and
Appeal 2019-004237
Application 14/758,654

3
positioning in a desired position the one or more layers of
reinforcement or foam material by using the one or more
devices in order to climb up the inclined surface of the inner
walls of the mold.
Appeal Br. 13.
OPINION
The Examiner found that Frederiksen discloses the claim 1 method
except that Frederiksen does not teach providing a climbing device that
conforms to the inner mold walls’ curvature profile, and fastening the device
to the mold away from the inner walls without further fixation to the inclined
mold surface. Final 3–4. Frederiksen discloses, however, that “it may be
necessary for workers to climb into the blade in order to install [mold] parts
in the interior of the shell members and to carry out the necessary finishing
of the blade.” Frederiksen ¶ 55.
The Examiner found that Neuleib discloses a step system for
providing a toehold/slide guard on inclined surfaces, such as roof surfaces.
Final 4 (citing Neuleib, Abstract). As found by the Examiner (id.), Neuleib
discloses that the step system may be attached to a side of the roof before
attachment of shingles to that side, or may extend entirely over the other side
of the roof and attached to the house, thereby avoiding creating holes in the
roof sheathing (Neuleib ¶ 20). Neuleib discloses attaching the step system
using a single grommet on each side at the top of the step system. Id. ¶ 23.
The Examiner determined that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have used Neuleib’s step system in Frederiksen’s method to facilitate
workers climbing into the mold cavity, and that the ordinary artisan would
have fastened the step system away from Frederiksen’s inner mold walls to
avoid creating holes in the fiber layers. Final 4.
Appeal 2019-004237
Application 14/758,654

4
The Appellant argues that “Frederiksen expressly teaches away from
features which might give rise to structural weaknesses or weak points in [a
wind turbine] blade, recognizing that such issues can ultimately lead to blade
failure.” Appeal Br. 10. The Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan would
have understood that modifying Frederiksen’s method to use Neuleib’s step
system “would be counterproductive to wind turbine blade structural
integrity because it increases the likelihood that weak spots will be formed
in the blade that will ultimately lead to blade failure during use.” Id. at 8–9.
According to the Appellant,
[e]ven if one were to secure [Neuleib’s] step system using only
a single grommet on each side of the top of the step system,
each of the remaining fixing grommets along the length of the
connecting material create non-flat (e.g., raised) surface
interruptions, and as a result, would increase the likelihood of
causing damage or other disturbances to the working layer
beneath the flexible material and grommets.
Id. at 9. The Appellant further argues that other features of Neuleib’s step
system, e.g., the traction characteristics and material connecting the steps,
would cause damage to Frederiksen’s fiber layers. Id. The Appellant
contends that “there is no indication in either of the cited references that
Neuleib’s step system might be safe for use in Frederiksen’s blade
construction procedure without compromising the structural integrity of the
blade,” and, therefore, the Examiner’s rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight reconstruction. Id. at 10.
We have considered the Appellant’s arguments, but find them
unpersuasive for the reasons explained in the Answer. See Ans. 6–7. As
found by the Examiner, Neuleib expressly teaches that the step system
prevents damage to underlying shingles. Ans. 6 (citing Neuleib ¶¶ 8, 20, 27).
Appeal 2019-004237
Application 14/758,654

5
The Examiner also found that Neuleib’s connecting material and the
Appellant’s climbing device material are substantially the same. Id. at 7;
compare Neuleib ¶ 24 (“Any number of fasteners other than nylon seat belt
webbing 138 could be used to secure the step 130 to the connecting material
110, but nylon seat belt webbing is preferred because the nylon webbing 120
has low profile on the opposite side of the material 110.”), with Spec. 6:4–5
(“[S]upport 200 may comprise a net of a flexible material such as a nylon
webbing, rope, etc.”). Thus, the Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding
that Neuleib’s step system would not damage Frederiksen’s fiber layers. By
contrast, the Appellant has not identified persuasive evidence to support its
arguments that the ordinary artisan would have expected various features of
Neuleib’s step system to damage Frederiksen’s mold.
Accordingly, because the Appellant has not identified reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and argues the claims as a group, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5.
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5 103(a) Frederiksen, Neuleib 1–5

Appeal 2019-004237
Application 14/758,654

6
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED