Ex Parte Egedal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2017

13248073 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2017)

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.
13/248,073 09/29/2011 Per Egedal 2010P14900US 3197
22116 7590 08/03/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VIET P
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PER EGEDAL and RUNE RUBAK
Appeal 2016-007209
Application 13/248,0731
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, AVELYN M. ROSS, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 16, 18—31, and 34. We have jurisdiction. 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007209
Application 13/248,073
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as relating to adjusting a power
parameter of a wind turbine based upon wind turbulence or wind speed.
Spec. 1:8—14. Claims 16 and 31 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 16, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A method for adjusting an electrical power
parameter of a wind turbine, the method comprising:
determining a load parameter indicative of a mechanical
load of the wind turbine;
estimating a turbulence of a wind speed based on the
determined load parameter;
updating a power lookup table defining a power of the
wind turbine depending on the rotor speed, the power lookup
table is updated by using the estimated turbulence;
adjusting the electrical power parameter based on the load
parameter, the estimated turbulence and a minimal power
supplied from the power lookup table.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App’x). Claim 31 recites “[a] system for adjusting an
electrical power parameter of a wind turbine” and recites “a power lookup
table defining a power of the wind turbine via a relationship between the
rotor speed and an estimated turbulence.” Id. at 16.
2 In this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action dated April 15, 2015
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated May 17, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
July 18, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-007209
Application 13/248,073
REJECTION AND REFERENCES
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 18—31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Holley, US 5,289,041, issued Feb. 22, 1994
(hereinafter “Holley”) in view of Yoshida et al., US 2009/0241659 Al,
published Oct. 1, 2009, and Feddersen et al., US 2003/0151259 Al,
published Aug. 14, 2003. Ans. 2; Final Act. 2—8.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Holley teaches claim 16’s recited “power
lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine depending on the rotor
speed” and claim 31 ’s recited “power lookup table defining a power of the
wind turbine via a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated
turbulence.” Final Act. 3, 7. Appellants argue that Holley does not teach
this recitation. Appeal Br. 9—11.
We begin our analysis with claim construction. The Specification
depicts use of a power lookup table at Figure 1, reproduced below.
3
Appeal 2016-007209
Application 13/248,073
Figure 1 schematically illustrates a system for adjusting a power parameter
(i.e., any parameter that is dependent on or affects power of the wind
turbine, such as a power output, rotor speed, and/or blade pitch angle of a
blade) of a wind turbine according to an embodiment of Appellants’
invention. Spec. 9:1—2; see also id. 2:16—30 (defining power parameter).
The power lookup table in Figure 1 is illustrated as Optimum Power Table
109. As illustrated in Figure 1, inputs to the power lookup table 109 are
rotor speed and turbulence (or, more precisely, an estimate of turbulence).
The output from the optimal power table is a “minimum power.” See Spec.
10:5-20.
Based on the language of claim 16, Appellants’ Figures, and the
Specification, the recited “power lookup table defining a power of the wind
turbine depending on the rotor speed” outputs a power value. In other
words, power is what may be looked up in the “lookup” table. The power
value outputted depends (at least in part) on rotor speed. Similarly, claim
31 ’s recited “power lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine via a
relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence” outputs a
power value of the wind turbine, and the power value outputted is defined by
“a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence.” See
also Ans. 3 (explaining that power supplied from the table is based on
current rotor/wind speed condition).
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Holley teaches the
power lookup table in Figures 2, 5A, and 5B. Final Act. 3. In particular, the
Examiner equates Holley Figure 2’s parameter schedule 42 as being the
recited lookup table. Parameter schedule 42, however, accepts a predicted
wind speed as its input and provides desired rotor speed, desired torque, and
4
Appeal 2016-007209
Application 13/248,073
desired pitch angle as outputs. Holley Fig. 2; see also id. 4:27—31 (“the
schedule includes a series of values for desired torque, rotor speed and pitch
angel (if pitch is variable), all as a function of wind speed.”). Meanwhile,
Figures 5 A and 5B illustrate curves for desired rotor speed and desired
torque versus windspeed. The Examiner has not adequately explained how
Figures 2, 5A, or 5B can be understood to teach the power lookup table
recitations of claims 16 or 31 as explained above. Appeal Br. 9-11. In
particular, the Examiner has not adequately explained how parameter
schedule 42 depends on rotor speed, is defined by a relationship between the
rotor speed and an estimated turbulence, or outputs a power.
In the Answer, the Examiner cites column 3 of Holley as disclosing a
power lookup table that defines power as a relationship of rotor speed.
Ans. 3. The cited portions of Holley, however, indicate that rotor speed is
selected based on a predicted “power parameter” and that “the power
parameter is wind speed.” Holley 3:11—24; see also Reply Br. 6. In other
words, this portion of Holley is best understood as referring to Holley’s wind
speed observer 40 because it is discussing predicting wind speed which is
“indicative of the amount of power available from the power source.” We
do not understand this portion of Holley as teaching a table that outputs a
power that depends on rotor speed or is defined by a relationship between
the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence.
The Examiner also cites column seven of Holley as disclosing a
mathematical relationship between rotor speed and power. Ans. 3. Column
seven further discusses the wind observer of Holley which outputs a
predicted wind and rotor speed. Holley 7:14—18. Like the portions of
5
Appeal 2016-007209
Application 13/248,073
Holley discussed above, the Examiner does not persuasively explain how
this portion of Holley teaches the lookup table recitations discussed above.
Because Appellants have established that the Examiner has not
adequately explained how Holley (or any other cited reference) teaches the
power lookup table as recited in claims 16 and 31, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
16, 18-31, and 34.
REVERSED
6