Ex Parte Beyene et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 25, 201210859860 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012) 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. 10/859,860 06/03/2004 Asfaw Beyene NSI 04-01 7478 7590 07/26/2012 DR. JAMES H. WILSON 3834 VISTA AZUL SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 EXAMINER WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3783 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ASFAW BEYENE and TERRENCE IRELAND ____________ Appeal 2009-015346 Application 10/859,860 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Asfaw Beyene and Terrence Ireland (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2009-015346 Application 10/859,860 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to turbines having symmetrical blades. Spec., paras. [0003]-[0004]. Independent claims 1, 15, and 18, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for increasing efficiency of a symmetrical blade, the method comprising: providing a rigid portion of the symmetrical blade; and providing a flexible portion of the symmetrical blade, wherein the rigid portion of the symmetrical blade is connected to the flexible portion of the symmetrical blade, wherein the flexible portion of the symmetrical blade is adapted to bend with a flow across the symmetrical blade. 15. An apparatus comprising a flexible symmetric blade adapted to increase an efficiency of a Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) system, wherein the geometry of the symmetrical blade is adapted to vary to reduce the loss of the symmetrical blade over an entirely rigid symmetrical blade. 18. A turbine system, the turbine system comprising a rigid symmetrical blade adapted to rotate in a direction orthogonal to a direction of flow across the symmetrical blade. THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dipnall (US 5,937,644; iss. Aug. 17, 1999). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dipnall in view of Appellants’ Appeal 2009-015346 Application 10/859,860 3 admission that blades having rigid and flexible portions and fully flexible blades are obvious variants of one another. 3. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) because Appellants did not invent the claimed subject matter. CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over Dipnall because the claims do not call for an “arm” and Dipnall’s arm is not the claimed “blade.” App. Br. 2, 5; Reply Br. 2.1 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 should not be sustained because claim 18 is directed to a flexible turbine blade. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. The issues presented by this appeal are: Did the Examiner err in determining that Dipnall’s arm 12 is the claimed “blade”? Is claim 18 directed to a flexible turbine blade? ANALYSIS Claim Interpretation During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The claims recite a “blade” for use in a turbine. Appellants argue that “a turbine arm can not perform the functions of a turbine blade, and a turbine blade can not perform the functions of a turbine arm.” App. Br. 5; see also App. Br. 8-11, 1 “App. Br.” refers to the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed May 4, 2009. Appeal 2009-015346 Application 10/859,860 4 Evidence Appendix (letter from inventor Asfaw Beyene asserting that “blade” and “arm” are two distinct components in the field of turbomachinery). The Specification does not provide a lexicographic definition of “blade.” An ordinary meaning of “blade” is “[t]he flat, cutting part of an object; specific uses include: Mechanical Devices: The flat arm of a fan, turbine, or propeller. Aviation: A propeller arm or rotary wing, especially the part that cleaves the air and has an efficient airfoil shape.” ACADEMIC PRESS DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (1992), http://www.credoreference.com, last visited July 20, 2012. Another meaning of “blade” taken from a general dictionary is “[a] vane upon the circumference of a revolving cylinder or disc of a turbine” and “Aeronaut. A part of the propeller of an aeroplane or rotary-wing aircraft which acts upon the air.” OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, 2d ed. (1989), Definitions II.5.c. and d., http://www.oed.com, last visited July 20, 2012. According to these definitions the function of a turbine blade is to cut, cleave, or act upon a fluid. While the patents and websites cited in Mr. Beyene’s letter describe, for the most part, turbine blades and arms as different components, they do not evince that a turbine arm cannot perform the functions of a turbine blade. We interpret “blade” in accordance with its ordinary meaning to mean a portion of a turbine that acts upon a fluid, such as air or liquid. Rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dipnall Appellants argue claims 15-17 as a group. App. Br. 5. We select claim 15 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2009-015346 Application 10/859,860 5 Dipnall discloses a turbine 1 having a plurality of blade modules 5, which are formed of a hub element 6, arms 12, and blade arrays 7. Col. 4, ll. 25-38; fig. 1. Dipnall discloses that the arms 12 are “moulded from semi- rigid plastics material which is capable of significant resilient flexure” and “the arms can have an aero-foil cross-sectional configuration which itself will produce thrust as in a Wells type turbine.” Col. 5, ll. 14-16 and col. 6, ll. 6-8; fig. 3. Dipnall discloses that the airfoil shape of the arms is “a symmetric configuration of greatest [sic] width than depth so as to permit flexure in the direction of its minor axis and to resist flexure in the direction of its major axis in order to transfer movement in the direction of its major axis to the arm 12 causing twisting of that component.” Col. 6, ll. 14-18. Dipnall also discloses that leading edge of the arms 12 have a swept back shape such that when “subjected to lateral fluid flows, both twisting and bending will occur which tends to improve the incidence angle of flow over the arms [that] causes an improvement of the lift/drag ratio and contributes to the torque input to the rotor 14 caused by the arms.” Col. 6, ll. 21-26. Dipnall discloses that “[t]he bending and twisting of the arms can directly produce useful torque.” Col. 5, ll. 10-11. As such, Dipnall’s arms 12 extend from the hub 6 of the turbine rotor, have a symmetrical airfoil shape, are formed of a flexible material and are described as capable of twisting and bending and producing thrust as in a Wells type turbine2 when subjected to 2 The Specification describes in the background of the invention that a Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) system can use a Wells turbine. Spec., para. [0001]. Appeal 2009-015346 Application 10/859,860 6 flow over the arms. Further, as noted by the Examiner, the increase in efficiency of the claimed invention is achieved by the ability of the blade to bend, which bending is disclosed in Dipnall. Spec., para. [0015]; Ans. 6. Based on this disclosure, the arms 12 of Dipnall function as blades as that term is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dipnall discloses the flexible symmetric blade as called for in claim 15. Ans. 4-6. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dipnall. Rejection of claims 1-14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dipnall Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reliance on Appellants’ admission that fully flexible blades, as called for in claim 15, and blades having both rigid and flexible portions, as called for in claims 1-14, 19, and 20 are obvious variants of one another. Rather, Appellants rely on the same argument that Dipnall’s arms 12 are not blades as the basis for patentability of claims 1-14, 19, and 20 over Dipnall. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. We do not find these arguments persuasive for the same reasons set forth above in our discussion of claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1- 14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) Appellants argue for claim 18 that “[t]he Examiner misquoted our claim 18.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert that “claim 18 reads: ‘The entirely flexible blade 105 can bend with the flow direction and give a turbine blade more impulse.’” Id. Claim 18, reproduced in its entirety above, is directed to a turbine system comprising “a rigid symmetrical blade Appeal 2009-015346 Application 10/859,860 7 adapted to rotate in a direction orthogonal to a direction of flow across the symmetrical blade.” We find no basis in the claim language for Appellants’ position that claim 18 is directed to a flexible blade. We agree with the Examiner that the Specification describes that a Wells Turbine having symmetrical, rigid blades was known in the art. Ans. 4 (citing Spec. 1, para. [0001]). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in determining that Dipnall’s arm 12 is the claimed “blade.” Claim 18 is not directed to a flexible turbine blade. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation