11986036 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016)

Ex Parte Hansen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 6, 2016

11986036 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111986,036 11/19/2007 22116 7590 01/08/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Henrik Lynderup Hansen 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. 2006P22353US 1730 EXAMINER CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2016 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HENRIK L YNDERUP HANSEN and JESPER MOELLER Appeal2013-010552 Application 11/986,036 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejections of claims 43-56. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 "The real party in interest in this Appeal is the assignee Siemens Aktiengesellschaft." (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal2013-010552 Application 11/986,036 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention relates a device "for mounting wind turbine blades, in particular mounting blades on a wind turbine." (Spec. 1 :3-5.) Illustrative Claim2 43. A wind turbine blade lifting device, comprising: a lifting frame having at least one seat arranged to provide lateral support without lifting support to an upwardly- positioned trailing edge of a wind turbine blade disposed in the lifting frame; at least one flexible belt wound affixed to the lifting frame around a downwardly positioned leading edge of the blade to support an entire weight of the blade; and a remotely controllable release mechanism connected between the at least one flexible belt and the lifting frame to release said belt from supporting the weight of the blade and to permit the lifting device to be removably raised from the blade. Henning Bervang Asami References us 5,772,269 US 2005/0019166 Al JP 03023189 A Rejections3 June 30, 1998 Jan.27,2005 Jan. 31, 1991 The Examiner rejects claims 43-55 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Henning and Asami. (Final Action 3.) The Examiner rejects claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bervang, Henning, and Asami. (Id. at 6.) 2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims App.") set forth on pages 9-11 of the Appeal BrieÂ£ 3 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 43-52, 54, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. (Answer 8.) 2 Appeal2013-010552 Application 11/986,036 ANALYSIS Independent claims 43 and 53 are each directed to a "wind turbine blade lifting device" comprising a flexible "belt" or "member" wound around a leading edge of a blade "to support an entire weight of the blade." (Claims App.) Independent claim 56 likewise recites a "flexible member wound around a leading edge of the blade to support an entire weight of the blade." (Id.) The Examiner determines that Henning discloses a lifting device with such a flexible member. (See Final Action 3.) Henning shows, in Figure 3, a lifting device comprising a strap 2 wound around the leading edge of an aircraft flap 4. The Examiner's rejections rely upon a rotation of the orientation of Henning' illustrated lifting device (see Final Action 3--4, 7-8) so that the flap's leading edge is downwardly positioned as depicted in the Appellants' annotated drawing on page 5 of the Appeal Brief. The Examiner finds that, in this rotated orientation, Henning's strap 2 would support the "entire weight" of the blade as recited in independent claims 43, 53, and 56. (Id.) We are persuaded by the Appellants' position that the Examiner does not sufficiently support this finding. (See e.g., Reply Br. 2.) Henning discloses that its lifting device comprises a "flap-engaging fixture" that is a "clam shell type bracket" having upper section 5 and lower section 6. (Henning col. 2:45--48.) An "adjustable tension bar" is "disposed in the space between said upper section 5 and said lower section 6" and this adjustable tension bar is manipulated "to insure a tight connection" with the trailing edge of flap 4. (Id. at col. 3:1-6.) When a crane boom is lifting Henning's device off the ground (see, e.g., Henning col. 4:6-9), the flap- engaging fixture would be tightly connected with the trailing edge of flap 4, 3 Appeal2013-010552 Application 11/986,036 whereby sections 5 and 6 would seemingly contribute to the lifting support for flap 4. Hence Henning's disclosure supports the Appellants' contention that one skilled in the art would "appreciate that upper section 5 and lower section 6 provide certain lifting support to flap 4 and consequently strap 2 of Henning does not support an entire weight of flap 4." (Reply Br. 2.) The Examiner does not point, with particularity, to disclosure in Henning contrary to this contention. And the Examiner does not otherwise explain why Henning's lifting device has a structure capable of lifting a blade in a manner wherein strap 2 supports the entire weight of the blade. The Examiner does implicate that, when Henning' s lifting device is "[ o Jn the ground," the flap-engaging fixture provides "no lifting support (as Henning in this position would not lift the blade)." (Answer 13.) But the Examiner does not adequately address how, when Henning's lifting device is so grounded and flap 4 is not being lifted, strap 2 would support the entire weight of the flap. The Examiner does not, for example, explain why the ground surface would not at least partially support the weight of flap 4 in this theoretical scenario. As such, the Examiner does not sufficiently establish that Henning' s strap 2, when wound around a leading edge of a blade, would support the "entire weight" of the blade as recited in independent claims 43, 53, and 56. The Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to the other prior art references of record (i.e., Asami, Bervang) and/or the dependent claims (i.e., claims 44--52, 54, and 55) do not compensate for this shortcoming. (See Final Action 4--9.) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 43-56. 4 Appeal2013-010552 Application 11/986,036 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 43-56. REVERSED tkl 5