Ex Parte Evans et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13339153 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/339, 153 12/28/2011
6147 7590 09/23/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. Kl-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott Charles Evans
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
248894 (12764-307) 3530
EXAMINER
KARIM, ZIAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT CHARLES EV ANS,
JOHN ANDERSON FERGUS ROSS, COLIN CRAIG MCCULLOCH,
LANG TONG, PETER ALAN GREGG, JOHN DAVID HILTON, JR.,
ANDREW FERREE, JOSHUA BENJAMIN SCHOENSTEDT, and
WASEEM IBRAHIM FAIDI1
Appeal2015-005606
Application 13/339, 153
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 20, all of the pending claims in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is General Electric Company.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005606
Application 13/339, 153
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a control system and method for
predicting power generation of one or more wind turbines of a wind farm.
See Abstract, Spec. 1.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitation in italics):
1. A control system for use with a plurality of wind
turbines, said control system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device coupled to said processor, said memory
device configured to store a plurality of program modules that,
when executed by said processor, configure said processor to:
receive data representative of a power generation
of a first wind turbine of the plurality of wind
turbines; and
determine an expected power generation of a
second wind turbine of the plurality of wind
turbines based on the power generation of the first
wind turbine.
REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lovmand et al. (US 2011/0301769 Al; published
Dec. 8, 2011) ("Lovmand"), and Barnes et al. (US 6,975,925 Bl; issued
Dec, 13, 2005) ("Barnes").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner's Answer. We agree with
Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments below for emphasis.
2
Appeal2015-005606
Application 13/339, 153
The Examiner finds Lovmand teaches all of the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 11 with the exception of "determin[ing] an
expected power generation of a second wind turbine of the plurality of wind
turbines based on the power generation of the first wind turbine," as recited
in claim 1, and recited similarly in claim 11. See Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Lovmand i-fi-f 11, 34, 60, Fig. 1), 9-10 (citing Lovmand i161, Fig. 1). The
Examiner finds that Barnes teaches or suggests the aforementioned
limitation based on Barnes' s teaching of "calculating a forecast energy
output that the wind farm will produce in response to the current wind
pattern." Final Act. 4 (quoting Barnes Abstract, citing Barnes 1:41---62), 10
(quoting Barnes Abstract, citing Barnes 1 :41---62). Also in support of this
position, the Examiner directs attention to Barnes Figure 1 element 110 that
describes "calculat[ing] the energy output that the wind farm will produce
based on the retrieved energy output." See Final Act. 2 (citing Barnes 2 :26-
65, Fig. 1); Ans. 15 (citing Barnes 2:26---65, Fig. 1).
We agree with Appellants' argument that Barnes does not teach or
suggest determining an expected power generation of a second wind turbine
of the plurality of wind turbines based on the power generation of the first
wind turbine because Barnes' does not teach operating at the individual
turbine level, but instead teaches a forecasting method that operates at the
windfarm level. See Br. 9. Appellants' arguments are consistent with the
Barnes' s teachings. See Br. 7-9 (citing and reproducing Barnes Abstract,
1 :41---62, 2:26---65, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner does not explain meaningfully
how Barnes' teachings directed to forecasting energy output for a wind farm
based on wind patterns associated with a corresponding wind farm energy
output (see Barnes 1 :41-62, 2:26--42), teaches or suggests forecasting
3
Appeal2015-005606
Application 13/339, 153
energy output for a second wind turbine of a wind farm (i.e., plurality of
wind turbines) based on the energy output of a first wind turbine of the wind
farm.
For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11, and claims 2-5, 9, 10, 12-15, 19, and 20
dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 20.
REVERSED
4