Ex Parte HehenbergerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201611908570 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 11/908,570 06/18/2009 Gerald Hehenberger 30020-229US1 5750 80841 7590 Verrill Dana LLP One Portland Square Portland, ME 04112-0586 12/21/2016 EXAMINER YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): patents @ verrilldana. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERALD HEHENBERGER Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 27—36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to wind turbines. Spec. 1. Claim 27, reproduced below with paragraph structure added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 27. A method of urging a rotor blade extending radially from a rotor hub of a wind energy plant into a feathered position, said rotor hub containing within it electrical devices, said electrical devices including an actuator for causing said rotor blade to transition between an operating position and said feathered position, and a lock configured to, when activated, prevent said rotor blade from rotating into said operating position, said lock being independently activated in response to failure of one of a power supply for said actuator and said actuator, said method comprising, in response to a failure in a power supply for the electrical devices: activating a rotor brake to apply a force that momentarily impedes rotation about a rotor axis that is perpendicular to the radial direction along which the rotor blade extends, wherein application of said force results in an inertial force acting on a center of gravity of said rotor blade, said inertial force resulting in a braking moment causing said rotor blade to rotate into said feathered position. The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the THE REJECTIONS rejections: Cousineau US 6,265,785 B1 Hehenberger US 6,428,274 B1 Lehnhoff US 6,604,907 B1 Brandt US 7,256,509 B2 Shibata US 7,436,083 B2 July 24, 2001 Aug. 6, 2002 Aug. 12, 2003 Aug. 14, 2007 Oct. 14, 2008 2 Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 27—29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Hehenberger and Cousineau. 2. Claims 30, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Hehenberger, Cousineau, and Lehnhoff. 3. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hehenberger, Cousineau, and Brandt. 4. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hehenberger, Cousineau, Lehnhoff, and Shibata. OPINION Appellant argues claims 27—36 as a group. Appeal Br. 3. We select claim 27 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner finds that Hehenberger discloses all of the elements of claim 27 except for the application of a force that momentarily impedes rotation about a rotor axis to produce a braking moment. Final Action 3^4. The Examiner relies on Cousineau as disclosing activating a rotor brake for momentarily impeding rotation about a rotor axis. Id. at 4 (citing Cousineau, col. 2,11. 17—20; col. 4,11. 22—30). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hehenberger’s method by using a rotor brake to apply a force to the rotor hub that momentarily impedes rotation about a rotor axis, as taught by Cousineau. Id. According to the Examiner, activating a rotor brake is one of a finite number of known methods to impede wind turbine rotor rotation. Id. Appellant traverses the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that, although Cousineau discloses mechanical braking to impede rotation of the rotor 3 Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 blades about a rotor axis, Cousineau performs such braking for a different purpose than to generate a moment of inertia (“braking moment”) to rotate the blades into the feathered position. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant characterizes this as a teaching away from utilizing a braking force to generate a moment of inertia (or “braking moment”) to cause the rotor blades to rotate to the feathered position. Id., see also Reply Br. 3—5. In response, the Examiner states that Cousineau is not relied on to teach generation of a moment of inertia. Ans. 2. Instead, the Examiner states that Hehenberger is relied on as disclosing the use of inertial forces acting on rotor blades. Id. In taking this position, the Examiner notes that inertial forces inherently act on the center of mass of an object. Id. at 2—3. The Examiner states that Cousineau is relied on merely to teach the use of a rotor brake to momentarily apply a force that impedes rotation of the wind turbine rotor. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner observes that using a brake is one of a finite number of known methods to brake the rotor of a wind turbine and is likely the most obvious method to do so. Id. at 4. Appellant’s argument regarding the purpose of Cousineau’s braking is not persuasive, as it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellants’ Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972). Instead, “a reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) {citing KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-421 (2007)). Furthermore, a reference does not teach away if it merely discloses an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention 4 Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant has not directed us to any language in Cousineau that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the use of mechanical braking to generate an inertial moment to urge rotor blades into the feathered position.1 The Examiner’s finding that momentarily braking Hehenberger’ s rotor will inherently generate a moment of inertia that will urge the rotor blades into the feathered position is supported by sound and persuasive technical reasoning that is in accordance with well-known principles related to angular momentum and the moment of inertia. Ans. 2—3. A wind turbine with variable pitch blades defines at least two rotational axes. A “first axis” defines rotation of the rotor blades about the hub. A “second axis” defines rotation of the individual blades as they vary in pitch or angle of attack, which “second axis” is substantially perpendicular to the “first axis.” See e.g., Cousineau, col. 1,11. 21—23 (“One braking solution is aerodynamic braking of the turbine by pitching the blades of the turbine to reduce rotational speed of the hub.”). While the rotor blades are rotating about the rotor hub of a wind turbine, the mass of the rotor blades will inherently possess a certain amount of angular momentum or inertia. If the hub is then subjected to momentary braking, this inherently generates torque or, in other words, a change in angular momentum of rotors rotating about the “first axis.” If, then, the center of gravity of the rotor blade is laterally displaced from the “second axis,” momentary braking of the hub, inherently, will also generate a moment of inertia about the “second axis.” As we understand Appellant’s Specification and claim, this moment of inertia about the axis of 1 Appellant does not otherwise dispute that applying Cousineau’s brake will cause a change in angular momentum of the rotor blades. 5 Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 rotation related to the varying pitch angle of the rotor blade (the “second axis”) is referred to in claim 27 as a “braking moment.” Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hehenberger with Cousineau to achieve the claimed invention. Among other things, Appellant argues that it would not have been “obvious to try” modifying Hehenberger with Cousineau. Appeal Br. 6. This solution has not previously been identified in the prior art and, therefore, applying the rotor brake to achieve the claimed step of rotating the rotor blade into the feathered position is not an “identified or predictable solution” that is “obvious to try.” Id. Appellant also argues that applying the braking of Cousineau to Hehenberger is not a predictable variation. Id. We disagree with Appellant on both the “obvious to try” and the “predictable variation” points, which are presented in conclusory fashion with no supporting evidence or persuasive technical reasoning. Hehenberger teaches that When the power supply for the geared motors fails, during rotation of the rotor the electromagnet 30 is activated and thus the brake disk 27 is raised off the brake lining 31 only in the area in which the rotor blades, due to the combination of the external wind forces and inertial forces, move in the direction of the feathered position. Hehenberger, col. 4,11. 21—27 (emphasis added). Thus, Hehenberger demonstrates that it was known to rely on inertial forces to urge rotor blades to the feathered position in the event of a power failure. Cousineau demonstrates that it was known to use a brake to slow the rotation of rotor blades about a hub. Cousineau, Abstract (“mechanical braking is used to reduce the rotation speed of the rotor”). The Examiner’s finding and 6 Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 reasoning that braking is one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for slowing a wind turbine is supported by rational underpinning. Ans. 4; see also Final Action 4. Appellant provides neither evidence nor persuasive technical reasoning to controvert the Examiner’s position that there are only a finite number of ways to slow a rotating hub and that braking is arguably the most obvious method to do so. Id. Moreover, in view of the well-known principles of angular momentum and moment of inertia, the background knowledge of which is reasonably imputed to the person of ordinary skill in the art, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s conclusory argument regarding a predictable variation of the prior art. See Appeal Br. 6; see also In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose.). Appellant presents no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to controvert the Examiner’s position that inertial forces inherently act on the center of mass of an object. See Ans. 2—3. Appellant, furthermore, presents no evidence that tends to establish the claimed invention achieves unexpected results. The PTO bears the initial burden of showing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, when a prima facie case of obviousness is made, the burden then shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence and/or argument supporting patentability. Id. In the instant case, Appellant’s arguments are superficial and conclusory in nature, and fail to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. A preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the teachings of Hehenberger, 7 Appeal 2015-001679 Application 11/908,570 Cousineau, and a working knowledge of general principles of angular momentum and moment of inertia, would have found it obvious to apply momentary braking at a rotor hub to facilitate the urging of rotor blades to the feathered position. See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328—29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-421 (2007) (Reason to modify may be found in the background knowledge, creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art.)). The subject matter of claim 27 is merely an incremental, predictable improvement to Hehenberger’s use of inertial forces to urge the rotor blades to the feathered position. We think a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated the effect of applying hub braking to the angular momentum and moment of inertia of the individual rotor blades and would have readily foreseen that such would have facilitated urging the rotor blades to the feathered position. We sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 27, and claims 28—36 fall with claim 27. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27—36 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation