Ex Parte HerbstDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 20, 201210532173 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012) 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. 10/532,173 03/27/2006 Manfred Herbst 2002p17478WOUS 6185 7590 07/20/2012 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 170 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 EXAMINER WHITE, DWAYNE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte MANFRED HERBST ____________________ Appeal 2010-005249 Application 10/532,173 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005249 Application 10/532,173 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 11, 12, and 15 – 30. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a wind power unit with structured surfaces for improvement of flow. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A wind power unit and a flow field, comprising: a mast positionable to receive a laminar flow along a path having a direction generally transverse to a direction along which the mast has a variable width, the mast including a maximum width measurable in a direction transverse to the laminar flow; a nacelle associated with the mast; a rotor associated with the nacelle; a plurality of rotor blades, at least one rotor blade having a plurality of recesses each having a shape in accord with the shape of a hemisphere, each recess positioned the same distance from all adjacent recesses, to improve flow arranged on the rotor blades approximately in the region between the transition point between laminar and turbulent flow and the final edge of the rotor blade and the shape and configuration of the recesses are designed such that, as the air sweeps past a recess, alternating flow eddies form in the recess that assist with continued laminar flow of the air while also reducing flow resistance along the surface relative to flow in the absence of the recesses, Appeal 2010-005249 Application 10/532,173 3 the mast characterized by a transition point along the flow path wherein a flow portion: (i) has predominantly laminar characteristics when travelling toward the transition point; and (ii) is characterized by turbulent flow when travelling away from the transition point, and wherein the transition point is positioned relative to a second point on the mast coinciding with the maximum width such that the flow portion first passes along the second point before passing the transition point. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hickey Olsen Wobben US 4,974,633 WO 02/064422 Al US 6,729,846 B1 Dec. 4, 1990 Aug. 22, 2002 May 4, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 11, 12, 15-17 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hickey in view of Olsen. Ans. 3. Claims 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hickey in view of Wobben. Ans. 5. OPINION Each of the independent claims involved in this appeal, claims 11, 22, and 25, require a particular structure, or structures, having “a plurality of recesses . . . each recess positioned the same distance from all adjacent recesses.” The Examiner points to “example pattern 67” used in Hickey’s sail 62 embodiment (Fig. 5), as disclosing such a feature. The entirety of Appeal 2010-005249 Application 10/532,173 4 Hickey’s disclosure regarding pattern 67 is “System 60, FIG. 5, for controlling the flow of air contacting an object such as sail 62 includes. . . radially formed deviation pattern 67 . . . [which] includes radially extending generally non-curvilinear deviation sets 69.” Col. 2, l. 55 – col. 3, l. 5, fig. 5. Appellant contends that “as can be seen from the star-shaped design of pattern 67, numerous recesses on different rays of the star which are adjacent one another are spaced apart varying distances from one another.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-4. The Examiner provides no response to this argument. Further, the drawings do not clearly depict, nor does Hickey indicate, that there is any particular dimension between deviations in pattern 67. Thus, it is not apparent how the Examiner is relying on the pattern 67 shown in figure 5 of Hickey to support the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner’s discussion of Olsen and Wobben appears to be limited to features found only in the dependent claims. Thus, it is also not apparent how and why the Examiner is relying on these references to support a rejection of claims 11, 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). We will not speculate as to the Examiner’s position and it is not Appellant’s burden to do so. Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation