10529123 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2013)

Ex Parte Achenbach

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 28, 2013

10529123 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2013)

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. 10/529,123 10/13/2005 Patrick Achenbach 1493 7590 10/29/2013 Edward J. Smith 1 River Road, 43-219 Schenectady, NY 12345 EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PATRICK ACHENBACH ____________ Appeal 2011-011135 Application 10/529,123 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011135 Application 10/529,123 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Patrick Achenbach (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-28. Claims 1-12 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 13 and 23 are independent; claim 13 is reproduced below: 13. An apparatus, comprising: a power-generating wind turbine switch cabinet; at least one power-generating wind turbine circuit element coupled to the power-generating wind turbine switch cabinet; a drying arrangement adapted to prevent water deposition onto the at least one power- generating wind turbine circuit element, the drying arrangement including an air flow device in close proximity to the at least one power-generating wind turbine circuit element and generating an air flow moving past the at least one power-generating wind turbine circuit element to counteract the water deposition onto the at least one power- generating wind turbine circuit element; and guiding means directing the air flow from the air flow generating device past the at least one power-generating wind turbine circuit element. PRIOR ART Roethel US 1,722,825 Jul. 30, 1929 Streed US 3,332,620 Jul. 25, 1967 Yamac US 4,890,395 Jan. 2, 1990 Lagerwey WO 01/21956 A1 Mar. 29, 2001 Appeal 2011-011135 Application 10/529,123 3 GROUNDS OF REJECTION 1. Claims 13-16, 21-25 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lagerwey and Yamac. 2. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lagerwey, Yamac and Roethel. 3. Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lagerwey and Yamac or Lagerway, Yamac and Roethel. 4. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lagerwey and Streed. 5. Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lagerwey and Yamac. OPINION The Examiner finds that Lagerwey discloses every limitation of independent claims 13 and 23 except for “guiding means capable of directing the air flow from the air flow generating device past the at least one power-generating wind turbine-like circuit element or guiding the generated airflow past the at least one power-generating wind turbine-like circuit element by guiding means.” Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Yamac discloses “these features on the face of that reference.” Id. Based on these findings the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lagerwey and Yamac “for the purpose of precisely guiding air flow and maximizing efficiency, while minimizing energy usage.” Id. Appellant argues that Lagerwey’s “machine housing [4] is not a ‘power generating wind turbine switch cabinet’” because “Lagerw[e]y nowhere teaches that the machine housing 4 contains switches that are inherently part of a switch cabinet.” App. Br. 13. In response to this Appeal 2011-011135 Application 10/529,123 4 argument, the Examiner finds that “on page 9 of Lagerwey, on line 26, the term ‘switched’ is disclosed such that one would know [from] the teachings of that reference [] that the argued and claimed switch cabinet is of the same scope with respect to patentability.” Ans. 9. In the portion cited, Lagerwey describes the switching on of a fan located in the air channel 56. See Lagerwey, p. 9, ll. 24-27. Lagerwey describes air channel 56 as follows: The air channel 56 runs from a cooling-air inlet 54, which is arranged on the windward side of the machine housing 4, to a cooling-air outlet 57, which is positioned on the leeward side of the machine housing 4. The air channel 56 is a more or less closed channel, so that the cooling air, which may be salty and moist, does not enter the machine housing 4. Id. at p. 3, l. 35 – p. 4, l. 2. Thus, there is no factual basis for the Examiner’s finding that the term “switched” is disclosed such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that Lagerwey’s machine housing 4 is a switch cabinet. The Examiner has not apprised us of, nor do we discern. any other portion of Lagerwey that supports the Examiner’s determination that Lagerwey’s machine housing 4 is a switch cabinet as claimed. Accordingly, the Examiner errs in concluding that the combined teachings of Lagerwey and Yamac render claims 13 and 23 unpatentable. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 23 and claims 14-16, 18, 20 and 24-28 which depend from either claim 13 or claim 23, as unpatentable over Lagerwey and Yamac. Neither Roethel nor Streed cure the deficiencies in Lagerwey outlined supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: claims 17, 19, 21and 22. Appeal 2011-011135 Application 10/529,123 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 13-28 are REVERSED. REVERSED mls