Ex Parte Angoli et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201814360313 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation