Ex Parte Angoli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2018

14360313 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018)

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.
14/360,313 05/23/2014 Roberto Angoli 2105-012 6577
1009 7590 03/12/2018
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2018 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):
u spto @ iplaw 1. net
laura @ iplaw 1. net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERTO ANGOLI,
PAOLO PARMA, and GIANCARLO GHIDESI1
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1—21.3 See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Revolution Energy Maker S.p.A. is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appellants’ Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway
Program and Petition to Make Special under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(a) was
granted on July 28, 2015.
3 Appellants present twenty-one claims, with an independent and dependent
claim both being numbered as claim 19. Appeal Br. 14—15.
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A system for energy production from renewable
sources comprising a support structure comprising a first pole
and a second pole which are positioned vertically; a wind
generator of vertical axis positioned on said first pole and a
wind generator of vertical axis positioned on said second pole;
said first pole and said second pole each comprising a
connection element positioned at their summit; said connection
element comprising a lower portion to be fixed to said first pole
and to said second pole; said connection element comprising an
intermediate portion and an upper portion; a first seat for a first
cable being positioned between said lower portion and said
intermediate portion; a second seat for a second cable being
positioned between said intermediate portion and said upper
portion; said first cable and said second cable being positioned
mutually perpendicular; the ends of said first cable and of said
second cable being fixed to the ground by posts fixed into the
ground; said first pole and said second pole being each
anchored by means of a hinge to a post fixed into the ground;
said wind generator having a longitudinal central through hole
to enable mounting on said first pole and on said second pole;
said wind generator comprising a lower first locking ring for
said wind generator, and an upper second locking ring for said
wind generator; a respective bearing being associated with said
first locking ring and with said second locking ring to enable
said wind generator to rotate.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
REJECTIONS
Claims 6—8, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1—8, 10-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Angoli (WO 2010/103378 Al, pub. Sept. 16, 2010),
Kelly (US 4,023,368, iss. May 17, 1977), and Lin (US 2010/0133846 Al,
pub. June 3, 2010).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Angoli, Kelly, Lin, and Miller (US 6,857,846 B2, iss. Feb. 22, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Claims 6—8, 16, 17, 20, and 21
Rejected As Being Indefinite
The Examiner rejected claims 6—8, 16, 17, 20, and 21 as indefinite
because (1) claims 6, 20, and 21 recite a “height greater than,” which does
not define an upper limit and (2) claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 recite “said main
tube” for which insufficient antecedent basis is provided. Final Act. 4.4
Appellants do not present arguments for this rejection (Appeal Br. 2, 4—9).5
Thus, we summarily sustain this rejection.
Claims 1—8, 10—17, and 19—21
Rejected Over Angoli, Kelly, and Lin
Appellants argue claims 1—8, 11—17, and 19-21 as a group. Appeal
Br. 4—9. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2—8, 11—17, and
19—21 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4 The caption omits claim 6, but the rejection finds claim 6 is indefinite. Id.
5 Appellants’ Amendment After Filing of Notice of Appeal, filed Aug. 12,
2016, cancelled claims 6, 20, and 21, and amended claims 7, 8, and 16, but
the Amendment was not entered. See Adv. Action, mailed July 11, 2017.
3
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
Claims 1-8. 11-17. and 19-21
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Angoli teaches a system
for energy production substantially as claimed, except for a wind generator,
locking rings, and bearings. Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner finds that Kelly
teaches a vertical axis wind generator 28 and determines it would have been
obvious to include such a wind generator on Angoli’s system as such use of
a known technique of a vertical axis wind generator positioned on a support
pole would improve Angoli’s similar system in the same way as Kelly by
harnessing wind energy for renewable energy production. Id. at 6—7.
The Examiner finds that Lin teaches vertical axis wind generators 20
with lower and upper locking rings 31,32 and bearings 33, 34. Id. at 7. The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Angoli’s system
further with such locking rings and bearings to enable the wind generator in
the modified Angoli system to rotate as taught by Lin as the use of a known
technique in similar devices for similar improvements. Id. at 7—8.
Appellants argue that Kelly teaches away from the combination of the
Examiner and indicates “it should not be made.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellants
argue that Kelly teaches using wind turbines only for rooftop applications
and teaches against their use for ground level application as follows. Id.
The inclusion of vertical wind turbines is viewed as
practical for rooftop installations only, and not for any ground
level application where people might be exposed to the whirling
turbine rotors or blades of the vertical wind units.
Id. (quoting Kelly, 5:60-64). Appellants further argue that Kelly expressly
states that the inclusion of vertical wind turbines is practical only for rooftop
applications, and Appellants claim a ground level application where Kelly
teaches that vertical wind turbines cannot be used. Reply Br. 1—2.
4
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Angoli’s photovoltaic system,
which collects solar energy, to include a vertical wind turbine is supported
by a rational underpinning based on the express teachings of Kelly. In this
regard, Kelly teaches that it is advantageous to combine both solar and wind
energy conversion systems into one compatible and cost-effective alternate
natural energy system. Kelly, 6:3—6; Final Act. 7 (citing id.). The Examiner
proposes to modify Angoli’s similar renewable energy conversion system
based on this teaching of Kelly so Angoli’s system would produce energy
from solar and wind energy in the same way as Kelly. Id.', Ans. 3.
The Examiner correctly finds that Angoli and Kelly teach analogous
systems that produce energy from renewable solar energy, and Kelly teaches
to augment such solar energy systems with wind turbines to capture energy
from another renewable energy source to increase the energy produced by
the system. Final Act. 5—6. As modified, Angoli’s system would produce
energy from solar and wind energy using techniques that Kelly teaches for
similar improvements. See Ans. 2—3.
We agree with Appellants that Kelly teaches the use of vertical wind
turbines included with solar panels is “for rooftop installations only, and not
for ground level application where people might be exposed to the whirling
turbine rotors or blades of the vertical wind units.” Appeal Br. 6 (quoting
Kelly, 5:60-64). This is so because Kelly teaches a solar panel system for
mounting on roofs of buildings in urban areas rather than remote or rural
areas that provide large tracts of open, flat land. Kelly, 1:17—27. Kelly
teaches to place wind turbines 28 on top of base housings 31, which are
approximately two feet in height. Id. at 5:52—55. Thus, wind turbines 28
would be approximately two feet off of the ground in ground applications.
5
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
Although Kelly may teach away from ground level applications, as
Appellants argue, the Examiner does not propose to modify Kelly’s rooftop
solar and wind system for ground applications. The Examiner proposes to
modify Angoli’s photovoltaic system to include vertical axis wind turbine
generators on poles 13, as Kelly teaches to do, so Angoli’s system produces
energy from solar and wind energy. Final Act. 6—7. In this regard, Angoli
teaches to suspend solar panels 12 atop posts 13 at a sufficient height above
the ground to enable total workability of the land below. Angoli, 2:10-12,
3:22-4:9. As a result, large solar plants “can be provided on agricultural
surfaces while maintaining the land usable for its primary purposes of crop
cultivation.” Id. at 3:19-21, Fig. 1.
We agree with the Examiner that Kelly’s teaching about the use of
wind turbines in ground applications in urban settings where people might
be exposed to the turbine rotors is not applicable to Angoli’s system or the
Examiner’s modification of Angoli. See Ans. 2—3. The Examiner proposes
to modify Angoli’s suspended solar collection system to include vertical
wind turbines, as Kelly teaches, for use in agricultural or rural settings, as
Angoli teaches. See Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 2—3.
The Examiner also proposes to do so using Lin’s teachings to suspend
vertical wind generators 20 atop a vertical shaft 12 using locking rings 31,
32 and bearings 33, 34. Id. at 7—8. Lin teaches to position vertical axis wind
generators 20 atop of poles 12 in a similar manner as Angoli suspends solar
panels atop posts 13. Lin || 3, 29, Figs, 1, 2. Lin’s teachings comport with
and facilitate Angoli’s teaching to position renewable energy systems at a
height sufficient to permit use of the land beneath. Angoli, 3:19-4:3.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—8, 11—17, and 19-21.
6
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 recites a system for energy production similar to
claim 1 where the first lower and second upper locking rings each have “an
adjustable fixing for enabling mounting of said wind generators vertically to
said first and second pole.” Appeal Br. 11—12 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner finds that Lin teaches locking rings 31, 32 having an
adjustable fixing because these rings are installed on the vertical pole. Final
Act. 13. The Examiner interprets “adjustable fixing” to mean “the securing
of the wind generator on the pole using the locking rings.” Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification “lacks any further explanation
of what would be considered adjustable fixing.” Id.
We interpret the term “an adjustable fixing” to mean the locking rings
can be altered to connect to the first and second poles. This meaning is
consistent with the plain meaning of the terms “adjustable” and “fixing” and
the claim language. It also is consistent with Appellants’ disclosure that the
locking rings comprise two half-flanges or half-rings 9 (Fig. 6) that are fixed
by at least three equidistant radial screws that enable the rings to be coupled
to a pole and also enable any non-linearity of the pole to be compensated for
so poles can be used “which are not necessarily perfectly linear” to “avoid
costly pole machining to ensure their linearity within particular tolerances.”
Spec. 8; Reply Br. 4—5 (quoting id.).
The Examiner has not explained how Lin’s locking rings 31, 32 would
provide an adjustable fixing in this manner, as claimed. Final Act. 13; Ans.
4. Lin teaches the rings as being upper and lower sleeves 31,32 that include
bushings 312, 322 whose inner diameter is greater than the outer diameter
of shaft lever 12 on which they are mounted. Lin 127, Fig. 2.
7
Appeal 2018-001705
Application 14/360,313
Upper and lower sleeves 31, 32 include respective bearings 33, 34 that
have inner rings that “are sleeved on the shaft lever 12.” Id. 27—29. Lin
does not disclose bearings 33, 34 or their inner rings as being adjustable in
the way they are fixed or sleeved onto shaft lever 12, which corresponds to
the claimed poles. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10.
Claims 9 and 18
Rejected Over Angoli, Kelly, Lin, and Miller
The Examiner relies on Miller to teach locking rings comprising half
flanges 41 that are fixed to pole 10 as recited in claims 9 and 18, which
depend respectively from claims 1 and 10. Final Act. 20—21 (citing Miller,
Figs 5, 6); Appeal Br. 11, 14 (Claims Appendix). Appellants do not present
arguments for this rejection. See Appeal Br. 4—9. Because we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claim 9. Because we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 10, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 18 as the Examiner relies on Miller to teach half flanges and not to
correct the deficiencies of Fin regarding locking rings with an adjustable
fixing.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—9, 11—17, and 19-21, and we
reverse the rejections of claims 10 and 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8