Ex Parte Herbst

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

10532173 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

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