Ex Parte Beyene et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2012

10859860 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

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