Ex Parte Busbey et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 15, 2019

13663779 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2019)

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.
13/663,779 10/30/2012 Bruce Clark Busbey 259167-2/GEC-585A 5767
87853 7590 05/17/2019
Dnritv Rr Mannina PA anH rrp.np.ral F.lertrir Forrmanv
EXAMINER
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2019 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 sdocketing @ dority-manning .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE CLARK BUSBEY, RAMESH VEDULA,
STEFAN HERR, REVATHY MURUGAPPAN, SATISH BALUSU, and
THOMAS JOSEPH FISCHETTI
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,7791
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated July 7, 2017, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1—4, 6-13, 20, 23, and 25-31.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 General Electric Company is the applicant and is identified as the real party
in interest in Appellants’ Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 30, 2018, hereinafter
“Br.”). Br. 1.
2 Claims 5, 14-19, 21, 22, and 24 are canceled. Br. 33-35 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed “to a blade insert for extending the
length of a wind turbine rotor blade.” Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 20, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A rotor blade assembly, comprising:
a first blade segment having a first joint end, the first
blade segment including a pair of first spar caps terminating at
or adjacent to the first joint end;
a second blade segment having a second joint end, the
second blade segment including a pair of second spar caps
terminating at or adjacent to the second joint end; and,
a blade insert extending lengthwise between a first end
and a second end opposite the first end, the blade insert
including a pair of third spar caps extending between the first
and second ends, the first end of the blade insert being coupled
to the first joint end such that the third spar caps of the blade
insert are aligned with the first spar caps of the first blade
segment at a first interface defined between the blade insert and
the first blade segment, the second end of the blade insert being
coupled to the second joint end such that the third spar caps of
the blade insert are aligned with the second spar caps of the
second blade segment at a second interface defined between the
blade insert and the second blade segment, the blade insert
defining a chord, the chord at the first interface being
substantially equal to the chord at the second interface,
wherein a first end-to-end joint is formed at the first
interface between the first spar caps of the first blade segment
and an end portion of the third spar caps disposed at the first
end of the blade insert and a second end-to-end joint is formed
at the second interface between the second spar caps of the
second blade segment and an opposed end portion of the third
spar caps disposed at the second end of the blade insert.
2
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 6, 7, 13, and 25-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nies (US
2009/0169390 Al, pub. July 2, 2009) and Hayden et al. (WO
2012/004571 A2, pub. Jan. 12, 2012, hereinafter “Hayden”).
II. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nies, Hayden, and Bakhuis et al. (US
2011/0142660 Al, pub. June 16, 2011, hereinafter “Bakhuis”).
III. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nies, Hayden, and Nies et al. (US
2010/0143135 Al, pub. June 10, 2010, hereinafter “Nies
’135”).
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 10-12, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nies, Hayden, and Gerber
et al. (US 2011/0223034 Al, pub. Sept. 15, 2011, hereinafter
“Gerber”).
V. The Examiner rejects claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nies, Hayden, and Arelt (US
2006/0127222 Al, pub. June 15, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1 and 25
The Examiner finds that Nies discloses, inter alia, a first blade
segment 10 having a first joint end 14, a second blade segment 20 having a
second joint end 22, and a blade insert 30 having first and second ends
located between first and second blade segments 10, 20. Final Act. 3 (citing
3
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
Nies, Figs. 2, 7, 8). The Examiner further finds that first blade segment 10
includes a pair of first spar caps 46, second blade segment 20 includes a pair
of second spar caps 46, and blade insert 30 includes a pair of third spar caps
46. Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that first and second joint ends 14, 22
of first and second segments 10, 20, respectively, are coupled to first and
second ends of blade insert 30 such that third spar caps 46 are aligned with
first and second spar caps 46. Id. at 4. Thus, according to the Examiner,
first and second end-to-end joints form between first and second joint ends
14, 22 of first and second segments 10, 20, respectively, and first and second
ends of blade insert 30 to form first and second interfaces. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that Nies fails to disclose that first and
second end-to-end joints at first and second interfaces, respectively, are
joints formed between first and second spar caps of first and second
segments 10, 20 and third spar caps disposed at first and second ends of
blade insert 30. Id. at 4-5, 8-9. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
Hayden discloses an end-to-end joint between spar caps 4.3 Id. at 5 (citing
Hayden, Figs. 3, 6). The Examiner further finds that Hayden’s end-to-end
joint constitutes a scarf joint. Id. at 9. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to modify Nies’ first and
second end-to-end joints with Hayden’s joint to form first and second
interfaces between Nies’ first and second spar caps and end portions of third
spar caps. Id. at 6. The Examiner reasons that such a modification would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan because
3 Although the Examiner refers to reference number “6” as a spar cap, we
shall follow Hayden’s use of reference number “4” to indicate a spar cap.
See Hayden, page 10,11. 11, 14, Figs. 3, 4.
4
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
the use of a known technique (in this case the use of end to end
connection of spar caps where end of the spar caps coincide
with ends of the blade segment as taught by Hayden), to
improve a similar devices (in this case the use of the end to end
connection as taught by Hayden to join the blade segments and
insert of Nies so as to promote a stronger joint between joined
segments of the blade . . . was an obvious extension of prior art
teachings.
Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); see also
id. at 9. With respect to the rejection of independent claim 25, the Examiner
further determines that such a modification “promote[s] a stronger joint
between joined segments of the blade by using the scarfed technique.” Id. at
10 (citing Hayden, page 6).
Finally, the Examiner also determines that, because Nies’ blade insert
30 extends the length of blade segments 10, 20, it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan that the chord length at interface 14 is substantially the
same as the length at interface 22 “in order to maintain the smooth interface
between the blade segments.” Id. at 5 (citing Nies, paras. 31, 32, 34); see
also Nies, Figs. 2, 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight
to combine the teachings of Nies and Hayden because Nies already provides
male and female connectors 54, 44 to couple its blade modules together. Br.
11-12. According to Appellants, “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have looked to Hayden to solve the blade connection issue already solved by
Nies.” Id. at 11. Appellants further argue that, because Hayden’s scarfed
connection constitutes a “permanent joint between adjacent spar segments,”
whereas “the blade modules of Nies are specifically designed to be
interchangeable,” the Examiner’s modification based on “the
interchangeability of the blade modules would be significantly limited . . .
5
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
thereby completely destroying the stated purpose of Nies to provide a
customizable, modular rotor blade.” Id. at 11-12 (citing Nies, paras. 30, 32,
37, 39, and 40). Hence, Appellants conclude that a skilled artisan would not
have made the Examiner’s modification because the modification “results in
a significant increase in the time, effort and resources” as it “increases the
complexity, cost and the number of processing steps required to join blade
modules together . . . which is particularly problematic given the desired
interchangeability of the blade modules of Nies.” Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness is based on impermissible hindsight
reconstruction. We appreciate Appellants’ position that Nies provides male
and female connectors 54, 44 to couple its blade modules. See Br. 11.
However, the Examiner’s modification is an improvement to Nies’ end-to-
end joint in the same way as taught by Hayden, specifically, to lead to a
predictable result of “a stronger joint” (see Final Act. 6), and the
modification is well within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in this
art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve
one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Moreover,
the Examiner has provided a reason with rational underpinning, namely, “to
promote a stronger joint.” See Final Act. 6; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds [require] some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.”) {cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appellants have not persuasively argued that the Examiner’s conclusion
lacks rational underpinning.
6
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
We also do not agree with Appellants’ position that the Examiner’s
modification would “completely destroy[] the stated purpose of Nies to
provide a customizable, modular rotor blade.” Br. 12. Although we
appreciate that the blade of Nies is customizable based on a particular
operation site (see Nies, para. 6) by employing interchangeable modular
segments, nonetheless, Nies does not disclose an interchangeable joint, as
Appellants urge. See Br. 12. Nies discloses customizing a blade by using a
set of modular segments based on the wind and load conditions at an
operating site and then “rigidly fix[ing]” (see id., para. 33) the chosen
modular segments via male and female connectors 54, 44 using a vacuum
infusion process where resin is infused under vacuum to form a “uniform
bond line.” Id., paras. 4-6, 35-36. As an artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose, a skilled
artisan would acknowledge that resin infusion under a vacuum to form a
“rigidly fixed” joint would not result in an interchangeable joint. See In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). As such, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been “obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art that the sections [of Nies] may be join[ed] together using the
connection system and further resin system as disclosed in Hayden.”
Examiner Answer (dated May 17, 2018, hereinafter “Ans.”) 3.
Furthermore, Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner’s modification
would result in increased complexity, cost, and effort to join Nies’ modular
blade segments, as modified by Hayden, is unsupported attorney argument
and cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, even assuming arguendo that such
an increase in complexity and cost takes place, nonetheless, Appellants have
not persuasively explained how the potential disadvantages of increased cost
7
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
and complexity outweigh the benefit of improved joint strength in the rotor
blade of Nies, as modified by Hayden. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v.
Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should
not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with
the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should
be weighed against one another.”).
Appellants also argue that “the Examiner provides absolutely no
support for the asserted proposition that it would have been obvious to
modify the intermediate module 30 of Nies so that the module 30 defines a
chord that is substantially equal at both of its ends.” Br. 14. Appellants note
that none of paragraphs 31, 32, and 34 of Nies, which the Examiner relies on
for support, “disclose or even suggest that the intermediate blade module 30
defines substantially the same chord at both of its ends.” Id. Appellants
further note that Nies discloses “that the chord length distribution of the
outer section of the rotor blade (e.g., the intermediate module 30 and the tip
module 20) ‘should remain as close as possible to the theoretical optimal
shape.’” Id (citing Nies, para. 27). As “the ‘theoretical optimal shape’ for
the chord length distribution of a rotor blade corresponds to a chord length
that continuously decreases as the rotor blade extends outwardly from its
maximum chord location to the blade tip,” Appellants contend that Nies fails
to disclose a blade segment having “substantially the same chord length at
both of its ends.” Id. at 14-15. Moreover, according to Appellants, it would
not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Nies’ blade segment to
have such a feature. Id. at 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the following
reasons. The lack of an express disclosure of a particular claim element
8
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
does not defeat a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and such a requirement
would essentially defeat the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We must
attribute skill to the hypothetical person described in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In
re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, because the
purpose of Nies’ intermediate section 30 is extending the length of blade 1
(combined length of root and tip sections 10, 20), the chord lengths of the
ends of intermediate section 30 would match the chord length between root
section 10 and tip section 20 where intermediate section 30 is to be
positioned. Ans. 3; see also Nies, Figs. 2, 7. In other words, a skilled
artisan would understand that the chord length on either side of interface 14,
22 in Nies’ Figure 2 is identical. As such, when positioning intermediate
section 30 between root section 10 and tip section 20, as seen in Nies’ Figure
7, the chord length would substantially be the same at both ends 14, 22 of
intermediate section 30 in order to match the equal chord lengths of root and
tip sections 10, 20 it connects. Moreover, we note that Nies’ disclosure in
paragraph 27 of a “chord length distribution” being “as close as possible to
the theoretical optimal shape” refers to the “outer section” of a turbine blade,
that is, blade tip section 20, and not to the mid-section of the blade (i.e.,
intermediate section 30), as Appellants assert.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 25 as unpatentable
over Nies and Hayden.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1 and adds the limitation
that “the airfoil shaped cross-section at the first interface being substantially
9
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
the same as the airfoil-shaped cross-section at the second interface.” Br. 33
(Claims App’x.).
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Nies and Hayden
disclose the limitation mentioned above. See Final Act. 7.
Appellants argue “that the Examiner is simply treating the chord-
related recitations of claim 1 as being the same as the airfoil-related
recitations of claim 3 and, thus, has failed to recognize the substantive
distinctions between the claims.” Br. 25. According to Appellants, “a rotor
blade could define substantially the same chord length at both of its ends
while still defining a varying cross-sectional airfoil shape at its ends.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because the
Examiner is correct in that “the arguments of. . . having the same cross-
sectional shape at one interface as at another interface . . . [go] back to the
arguments of the chord being substantially the same at opposite ends.” Ans.
6. Similar to the discussion above, a skilled artisan would understand that
the airfoil shaped cross-section on either side of interface 14, 22 in Nies’
Figure 2 is identical. As such, when positioning intermediate section 30
between root section 10 and tip section 20, as seen in Nies’ Figure 7, the
airfoil shaped cross-section would substantially be the same at both ends 14,
22 of intermediate section 30 to match the same cross-sections of sections
10, 20 that were connected and that intermediate section 30 now connects.
Accordingly, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 3 over the
combined teachings of Nies and Hayden.
Claims 2 and 4
Claim 2 depends directly from independent claim 1 and adds the
limitation that “the chord of the blade insert is substantially constant
10
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
between the first and second interfaces.” Br. 33 (Claims App’x) (emphasis
added). Claim 4 depends indirectly from independent claim 1 and adds the
limitation that “the airfoil-shaped cross-section of the blade insert is
substantially constant between the first and second interfaces.” Id.
(emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Nies and Hayden
disclose the limitations mentioned above. See Final Act. 6-7 (“i.e.[,] as
explained above, Nies”).
Appellants argue that “a blade section having the same chord [length
or airfoil-shaped cross section] at both of its ends could certainly still define
a varying chord [length or cross-section] between its ends.” Br. 24; see id. at
27.
Although we appreciate Appellants’ position, nonetheless, Appellants’
assertion in regards to Nies is unsupported attorney argument and cannot
take the place of evidence in the record. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470.
Here, Nies’ Figure 7 illustrates straight lines connecting interfaces 14, 22
between the ends of Nies’ intermediate section 30 and the ends of root
section 10 and tip section 20, respectively.4 As a drawing teaches all that it
reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the
skilled artisan would understand from Nies’ Figure 7 that the chord length
and the cross-section are constant between interfaces 14, 22. See In re
Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911,914 (CCPA 1979). If it were not so, then the lines
connecting interfaces 14, 22 between the ends of Nies’ intermediate section
4 The Examiner relies on Nies’ Figure 7 in the rejection of claim 1, from
which claims 2 and 4 depend. See Final Act. 3.
11
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
30 and the ends of root section 10 and tip section 20, respectively, would be
tapered. See, e.g., Figures 4, 11-14 of Appellants’ Drawings.
As such, for the foregoing reasons, we also sustain the rejection of
claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nies and
Hayden.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 26—30
Appellants do not set forth any other substantive arguments with
respect to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, and 26-30. See Br. 6-31.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra in regards to the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 25, from which these claims depend directly or
indirectly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, and 26-30 over
the combined teachings of Nies and Hayden.
Rejections II, III, and V
Appellants do not set forth any other substantive arguments with
respect to the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 31. See Br. 6-31. Accordingly,
for the reasons discussed above in regards to the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 25, from which these claims respectively depend, we also
sustain Rejections II, III, and V.
Rejection IV
Claim 20
In contrast to independent claims 1 and 25, independent claim 20
requires, inter alia, “a stiffness of the spar caps of the blade insert [that] is
greater than a stiffness of at least one of the first blade segment at the first
12
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
joint end or the second blade segment at the second joint end.” Br. 35
(Claims App’x).
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Nies and Hayden
fail to disclose the limitation mentioned above. See Final Act. 15-17.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Gerber discloses that the stiffness of
blade insert 120 is greater than the stiffness of at least one of blade segments
62, 64. Id. at 17 (citing Gerber, para. 43). Thus, the Examiner concludes
that, in light of Gerber’s disclosure, it would have been obvious for a skilled
artisan to provide the spar caps of Nies’ insert blade, i.e., intermediate
section 30, as modified by Hayden, with a stiffness greater than the stiffness
of root or tail sections 10, 20. The Examiner’s reasoning is “to stiffen the
connection of the blade sections and reduce the opening of the bending of
the blade assembly during operation and deflection of the rotor blade.” Id. at
17-18 (citing Gerber, para. 43).
In addition to the arguments discussed supra in the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 25 (see Br. 15-18, 21-22), which we did not find
persuasive, Appellants further argue that Gerber does not disclose that the
material of blade insert 120 has a greater “stiffness,” but rather a greater
“strength” than the material used to make body 40. See id. at 18-19.
According to Appellants, a skilled artisan “would recognize that strength and
stiffness correspond to different parameters, with strength generally
referring to the ability of a material to support a load without breaking and
stiffness generally referring to the ability of a material to distribute a load
and resist deformation or deflection.” Id. at 20 (emphasis added).
Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection,
which does not rely on the disclosure in Gerber’s paragraph 43 of using a
“stronger” material for making insert 120. Rather, the Examiner relies on
13
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
Gerber’s paragraph 43 to disclose “making support structures stiffer than the
rest of the blade.” Ans. 4. Gerber’s paragraph 43 states that “joint sleeve
120 . . . may include various . . . stiffener features 140.” As Gerber’s
paragraph 43 discloses providing stiffening features 140 to sleeve 120, the
Examiner is on solid footing to determine that sleeve 120 “ha[s] a higher
stiffness than other portions of the blade” (see Ans. 4), and, thus, to shift the
burden to Appellants to prove otherwise. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,
708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[Wjhen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that
the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has
the burden of showing that they are not.”). We, thus, agree with the
Examiner’s determination that in light of Gerber’s disclosure, the spar caps
of the resulting blade insert of Nies, as modified by Hayden (i.e.,
intermediate section 30), “hav[e] a stiffness . . . higher than the normal blade
structure.” Ans. 5.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nies,
Hayden, and Gerber.
Claims 11 and 23
Claim 11 depends directly from independent claim 1 and adds the
limitation that “at least a portion of the blade insert is formed from a
material having a greater stiffness than a material used to form the first and
second blade segments.” Br. 34 (Claims App’x). Claim 23 depends
indirectly from independent claim 25 and adds the limitation that “the third
spar caps of the blade insert are formed from a fiber-reinforced composite
having a greater stiffness than a fiber-reinforced composite used to form the
first and second blade segments.” Id. at 35.
14
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
The Examiner relies on Gerber’s paragraph 43 and Figures 1-8 to
determine that at least a portion of blade insert 120 is made from a material,
i.e., a fiber-reinforced composite, having a stiffness greater than the stiffness
of the material, i.e., another fiber-reinforced composite, used to make at least
one of blade segments 62, 64. Final Act. 14-15, 19.
Appellants make the same argument noted above in the rejection of
independent claim 20. See Br. 28, 31. More specifically, Appellants argue
that Gerber does not disclose that the material of blade insert 120 has a
greater “stiffness,” but rather a greater “strength” than the material used to
make body 40 of rotor blade 16, and a skilled artisan “would recognize that
strength and stiffness correspond to different parameters.” See id. As
evidence, Appellants provide definitions for the terms “stiffness” and
“strength.”5
Although we appreciate Appellants’ position that the terms “strength”
and “stiffness” have different meanings, nonetheless, we note that in the
context of Gerber the term “strength” encompasses the scope of the term
“stiffness,” at least in the present context. In other words, “the ability of a
material to support a load without breaking, as the term “strength” is defined
by Appellants, encompasses “the ability of a material to . . . resist
deformation or deflection,” and, thus, a material that is “strong” can also be
“stiff.” Such a situation arises in the context of Gerber’s paragraph 43.
“[A] prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir.
5 According to Appellants, the term “stiffness” means “the ability of a
material to distribute a load and resist deformation or deflection,” whereas
the term “strength” means “the ability of a material to support a load without
breaking.” Br. 28, 31.
15
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
1992) (emphasis added). In this case, paragraph 43 of Gerber states that
“joint sleeve 120 may . . . reinforce the rotor blade 16 at the location of bend
66” by forming “joint sleeve 120 . . . from a material that is stronger than the
material utilized to form the remainder of the body 40, or . . . [by]
including] various . . . stiffener features 140.” (Emphasis added). As
Gerber describes the manner to reinforce blade 16 in the alternative, we
agree with the Examiner’s position that when Gerber states that the material
of sleeve 120 “is stronger than the material utilized to form the remainder of
the body 40” it means that the material of sleeve 120 is also “stiffer.” In
other words, because Gerber discloses that providing a “stronger” material
for joint sleeve 120 has the same reinforcing effect as providing “stiffening”
features 140, a person of ordinary skill would understand that Gerber
discloses that the material of sleeve 120 is “stiffer” than the material used to
make the remainder of body 40 of rotor blade 16.
Lastly, with respect to Appellants’ argument that Gerber fails to
disclose the fiber-reinforced composite limitation of claim 23 (see Br. 30),
we note that such an argument is not commensurate with the Examiner’s
rejection. See Final Act. 19. The Examiner does not rely on Gerber for this
limitation, but rather states that it is known in the art to employ fiber-
reinforced composites to make a wind turbine rotor blade, such as that of
Nies, as modified by Hayden and Gerber. See id. (citing Bell, US
2011/0243736 Al, pub. Oct. 6, 2011). Appellants do not persuasively argue
the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to the fiber-reinforced
composite limitation of claim 23.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reason, we sustain the rejection of
claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nies,
Hayden, and Gerber.
16
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends directly from independent claim 1 and adds the
limitation that “the blade insert has a constant stiffness between the first and
second interfaces.” Br. 34 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Gerber discloses that the blade insert has a
constant stiffness because it is “formed of a homogenous material or
construction . . . between the first and second interfaces.” Final Act. 15
(citing Gerber, para. 43).
Appellants argue that, because in paragraph 44 Gerber discloses that
“joint sleeve 120 has a varying thickness along its length, with the maximum
thickness being provided at. . . bend 66,” Gerber cannot be relied on to
“teach[] that the joint sleeve 120 has a constant stiffness along its length.”
Br. 29 (emphasis added).
We appreciate Appellants’ position, but we are not persuaded because
the embodiment described in Gerber’s paragraph 44 is not the same as the
embodiments of paragraph 43. In paragraph 44 Gerber merely discloses
another alternative manner to reinforce blade 16, that is, to provide sleeve
120 with a varying thickness. Like making sleeve 120 from a material that
is “stronger” than the material used for the remainder of the body of blade
16 or providing stiffening features 140, providing sleeve 120 with a varying
thickness will likewise reinforce blade 16. See Gerber, paras. 43, 44.
Hence, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the
Examiner’s rejection, which relies on Gerber’s paragraph 43 to merely
disclose “making support structures stiffer than the rest of the blade is
known.” Ans. 6. As Gerber discloses in paragraph 43 using a single
material to make sleeve 120, the Examiner is on solid footing to determine
that sleeve 120 has a constant stiffness, and, thus, to shift the burden to
17
Appeal 2018-007544
Application 13/663,779
Appellants to prove otherwise. We, thus, agree with the Examiner that in
light of Gerber’s disclosure, the resulting blade insert of Nies, as modified
by Hayden (i.e., intermediate section 30), “would also have a purported
constant stiffness and not a varying stiffness,” as Appellants urge. Ans. 6-7.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we also sustain the rejection
of claim 12 over the combined teachings of Nies, Hayden, and Gerber.
Claim 10
Appellants do not set forth any other substantive arguments with
respect to the rejection of claim 10. See Br. 6-31. Therefore, for the reasons
discussed supra in regards to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20,
we also sustain the rejection of claim 10 over the combined teachings of
Nies, Hayden, and Gerber.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 6-13, 20, 23, and 25-
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
18