Ex Parte AMANO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

13372698 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/372,698 02/14/2012
32628 7590 11/21/2018
KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y oshiyuki AMANO
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.
TMP-096 6983
EXAMINER
WILENSKY, MOSHE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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):
office@uspatentagents.com
docketing@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIYUKI AMANO
Appeal2017-002104
Application 13/372,698
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the "invention relates to a blade attaching
method a power generating apparatus of renewable energy type, which
transmits rotation energy of a blade rotated by renewable energy to a
generator to generate power." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent
1 According to Appellant, "[ t ]he real party in interest is Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-002104
Application 13/372,698
claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the
appealed claims.
1. A blade attaching method for a power generating
apparatus of renewable energy type which comprises a blade, a
hub having a blade attaching part to which the blade is attached
and a bearing which supports the blade attaching part rotatably,
a generator to which a torque is inputted from a side of a rotor
including the blade and the hub, and a pitch drive mechanism
which adjusts a pitch angle of the blade by rotating the blade
attaching part, the method comprising the steps of:
holding the blade in such a manner that the blade attaching
part of the hub faces a blade root part of the blade;
rotating the blade attaching part to a set angular position
by the pitch drive mechanism in such a state that the blade is
held; and
after rotating the blade attaching part to the set angular
position, fixing the blade to the hub, the power generating
apparatus further comprising:
a plurality of the blades;
a plurality of the pitch drive mechanisms provided to
correspond to the plurality of the blades;
a plurality of existing control panels provided for
respectively controlling the plurality of the pitch drive
mechanisms to adjust the pitch angle of each blade during normal
operation of the power generating apparatus, the method further
compnsmg:
connecting a temporary control panel with the plurality of
existing control panels, the temporary control panel including a
plurality of control circuits which are provided respectively for
the plurality of existing control panels and configured to control
each pitch angle of the plurality of blades; and
then selecting a corresponding one of the plurality of the
control circuits, which corresponds to one of the existing control
panels provided for the pitch drive mechanism of the blade
attaching part to be rotated using a switching circuit of the
2
Appeal2017-002104
Application 13/372,698
temporary control panel, before the step of rotating the blade
attaching part,
wherein
the pitch angle of the blade attaching part to be rotated is
adjusted using the control circuit selected by the temporary
control panel in the step of rotating the blade attaching part.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the invention;
and
II. Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Wobben (US 2009/0058096 Al, pub. Mar. 5, 2009), Langen et
al. (US 2011/0206510 Al, pub. Aug. 25, 2011) (hereinafter
"Langen"), Iversen (US 2011/0173811 Al, pub. July 21, 2011),
and Pedersen (US 2009/0324380 Al, pub. Dec. 31, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 as indefinite, based on the
following:
Claim 1 recites a temporary control panel. The word
temporary is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It
is not clear how long or short the control panel must exist before
it is no longer temporary. A person of ordinary skill has no way
of knowing how long a control panel may remain attached before
it ceases to be a temporary control panel and becomes a mere
3
Appeal2017-002104
Application 13/372,698
control panel. [Appellant's] [S]pecification further complicates
the issue [because it states] that the so called temporary control
panel may be installed permanently .... Thus, the [S]pecification
does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree,
and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably
apprised of the scope of the invention.
Answer 2 (citation omitted). Based on our review, we disagree with the
Examiner that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably
apprised of the scope of the invention." Id. Notwithstanding that the control
panel under discussion is described as "temporary," claim 1 expressly
describes the claimed "temporary control panel," and differentiates the
temporary panel from the claimed "plurality of existing control panels." For
example, the claim recites that the "plurality of existing control panels [are]
provided for respectively controlling the plurality of the pitch drive
mechanisms to adjust the pitch angle of each blade during normal operation
of the power generating apparatus," and thereafter the "temporary control
panel" is "connect[ ed] ... with the plurality of existing control panels, the
temporary control panel including a plurality of control circuits which are
provided respectively for the plurality of existing control panels and
configured to control each pitch angle of the plurality of blades." Appeal
Br., Claims App. (Claim 1 ). Restated, the claim recites that the "temporary
control panel" is connected to a configuration that already includes the
"plurality of existing control panels," so that the temporary control panel is
able "to control each pitch angle of the plurality of blades." Id.
Based on our review of the Examiner's determinations regarding the
use of the term "temporary" (see Non-Final Action 2-3, 9; see Answer 2, 8-
10), and Appellant's responsive arguments (see Appeal Br. 9-19; see Reply
Br. 5-22), the Examiner does not support the finding that the claim is
4
Appeal2017-002104
Application 13/372,698
indefinite because the claim does not recite "how long or short the control
panel must exist before it is no longer temporary" (Answer 2). Thus, based
on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection
of claims 1-12.
Rejection II
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "a
plurality of existing control panels provided for respectively controlling the
plurality of the pitch drive mechanisms to adjust the pitch angle of each
blade during normal operation of the power generating apparatus." Appeal
Br., Claims App. (Claim 1 ). The Examiner relies on Langen to disclose this
claim recitation. Answer 4. More specifically, the Examiner finds the
following:
Langen teaches a control system (36) coupled to the plurality of
pitch drive systems. . . . It is unclear, based on the text of the
reference if Langen i[n] the first embodiment is one in which
three sub-controllers each control an individual blade or a single
control system sends separate signals to each blade. The former
would explicitly teach this feature. [The] Examiner takes the
position that it is the former based on the next paragraph [ of
Langen], which states that "in the exemplary embodiment
control system 36 is shown as being centralized within the
nacelle 16, however, control system 3 6 may be a distributed
system throughout the wind turbine 10. " If only a single control
system existed, the system could not be distributed to multiple
locations. [Thus, the] Examiner concludes that Langen has
embodiments with multiple sub-controllers each controlling an
individual blade.
Answer 4 ( emphases added) ( citation to Langen ,r,r 28-29 omitted); see also
Non-Final Action 4--5. Thus, the Examiner seems to rely on unidentified
"sub-controllers" from Langen's control system 36 to disclose the multiple
existing control panels, as claimed. Based on our review of the record, the
5
Appeal2017-002104
Application 13/372,698
Examiner does not support adequately the Examiner's conclusion reached in
accordance with the above discussion. For example, we disagree with the
Examiner that "[i]f only a single control system existed, the system could
not be distributed to multiple locations." Answer 4; see also id. at 10. In
particular, we see no reason why elements of a single control system, which
includes only a single sub-controller or single control panel, could not be
distributed throughout Langen' s wind turbine. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 23-31.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2-11 that depend from claim 1, for similar reasons.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6