Ex Parte Kjær et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2017

14123257 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2017)

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.
14/123,257 12/17/2013 Martin Ansbjerg Kjasr VEST/0255USP 9784
13923 7590 12/05/2017
Patterson Rr SheriHan T T P / Vesitas;
EXAMINER
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
QUIGLEY, THOMAS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2017 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN ANSBJERG KJ2ER, ALI ZAIB, and
ERIK CARL LEHNSKOV MIRANDA1
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Vestas Wind Systems A/S,
the assignee of the instant application. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed December 2, 2013
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed May 16, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed October 17, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed December 16, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Br. Filed February 16,
2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to a wind farm and a method of
operating a wind farm during high wind conditions in a manner that reduces
loss of power production. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A wind farm, comprising:
a plurality of wind turbines; and
a wind farm controller configured to perform operations, the
operations include:
receiving at least one signal from at least one wind turbine
of the plurality of wind turbines, and based on the at least one
signal: detecting a wind direction at the at least one wind turbine,
and detecting whether the at least one wind turbine has shut down
due to a high wind condition; and
upon detection of shut down of the at least one wind
turbine: reducing parameter setpoints and increasing cut-out
wind speed thresholds of other wind turbines of the plurality of
wind turbines wherein the cut-out wind speed thresholds of the
other wind turbines are increased to values at least based on the
detected wind direction and respective locations of the other
wind turbines relative to the at least one wind turbine.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20
as unpatentable over Cardinal3 in view of Wobben4 and Applicant Admitted
Prior Art (Spec. 1, Background of the Invention)(“AAP A”). Final Act. 2.
3 Cardinal et al., EP 2 096 301 A2, published September 2, 2009
(“Cardinal”).
4 Aloys Wobben, US 7,025,567 B2, issued April 11, 2006 (“Wobben”).
2
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
Appellants seek our review of the Examiner’s rejection over Cardinal
in view of Wobben and AAPA. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants argue
independent claims 1 and 9 together and do not present additional argument
for dependent claims 2—4, 6—8, 10-12, and 14—20 separate from what is
argued for independent claims 1 and 9. Id. at 13. Therefore, we focus our
discussion below on independent claim 1 to resolve the issues on appeal.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Cardinal in view of
Wobben and AAPA. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Cardinal
teaches a wind farm having a plurality of wind turbines with a controller that
receives a signal from at least one wind turbine regarding wind speed,
determines a derating factor, and then adjusts the setpoint for the wind
turbines accordingly. Id. at 2—3. The Examiner acknowledges that Cardinal
does not teach “[wjherein the cut-out wind speed threshold of the other wind
turbines are increased to values at least based on the detected wind speed
direction and a location of the at least one other wind turbine with respect to
the detecting turbine” and “[detecting whether the at least one wind turbine
has shut down due to a high wind condition,” as required by the claims. Id.
at 3. But, the Examiner finds that Wobben describes a wind farm system
where information from a first wind turbine is sent to a central controller and
“turbines downwind of the first wind turbine (4) may adjust operation
parameters to avoid damage to the installations . . . based on the information
provided by the first turbine, and their locations with respect to the turbine.”
Id. The Examiner also recognizes the teachings within the Specification that
explain that shutdown of a wind turbine is appropriate when wind speeds
3
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
exceed a predetermined threshold. Id. at 4. Thus, the Examiner reasons that
it would have been obvious to modify Cardinal to include the teachings of
Wobben, in order to prevent damage to the wind turbines located at a wind
farm. Id.
Appellants argue that neither Cardinal nor Wobben discloses adjusting
the parameter setpoints and cut-out wind speeds in response to a first wind
turbine shutting down. Appeal Br. 11. Rather, Appellants contend that
Cardinal teaches only two modes—one where a centralized controller is
capable of communicating a derating factor to all wind turbines in response
to a detected wind speed and another where an individual turbine shuts down
when it fails to receive a derating factor from the controller. Id. at 11—12.
And, according to Appellants, Wobben discloses “adjusting wind turbines
based on wind data received from upstream wind turbines . . . [not] adjusting
the parameter setpoints and cut-out wind speeds after a first wind turbine
shuts down.” Id. at 12. Appellants further explain that knowledge of wind
turbines shutting down under excessive wind speed events, as recognized by
the AAPA, would not cause a person skilled in the art to modify Cardinal
and Wobben to reach the claimed invention because shutdown goes against
the purpose of Cardinal. Id.
Appellants’ argument (Appeal Br. 11) that Cardinal and Wobben each
fail to teach reducing parameter setpoints and increasing cut-out wind speed
thresholds upon detection of a shutdown of one wind turbine fails to identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “The test for obviousness is what the
4
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner finds that Cardinal teaches reducing a parameter
set-point and increasing cut-out wind speed threshold upon detection of a
high wind condition. Final Act. 3. In relevant part, Cardinal explains that
“[i]n addition to reducing the power produced and the load stresses on the
wind turbine 100, the command signal 303 may also instruct the wind
turbine 100 to adjust the cut-out wind speed.” Cardinal 121. Cardinal
continues that “[according to embodiments of the present invention, at
reduced power generation levels for the individual wind turbine 100, the cut­
out wind speed may be adjusted upward.” Id. The Examiner relies upon
Wobben to teach gathering wind information from a first wind turbine and
using that information to adjust operational parameters for wind turbines
downwind of the first turbine. Final Act. 3. Wobben explains that
[t]he invention is based on the realization of not just measuring,
as hitherto done, the wind conditions at an individual wind power
installation by means of anemometers or other sensors, but also
using those measurement results for other wind power
installations which in the direction of the wind are arranged
behind the first wind power installation. If necessary, for
example when a gust or squall occurs, the other wind power
installations can implement a change in their blade setting angle
at a moment which is still in good time before the gust or squall
hits the wind power installation, and then, when the gust or squall
hits the other wind power installations, the loading on them is not
so great that it can still give rise to damage.
Wobben col. 2,11. 1—15. With these teachings, the Examiner reasons that
one skilled in the art would have reason to combine the teachings of
Cardinal and Wobben to prevent damage to wind turbines. Final Act. 4. We
find no error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions.
5
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
Furthermore, Appellants’ contention (Appeal Br. 12) that the
combination of Cardinal with Wobben is inconsistent with the purpose of
Cardinal is unpersuasive of reversible error. If a proposed modification
would render the prior art being modified unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed
modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A
reference, however, is not limited to the teaching in its preferred
embodiment, but also for what one of ordinary skill might reasonably infer
from the disclosure as a whole. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750
(CCPA 1976) (“all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered”). Contrary to Appellants’ assertions, the
goal of Cardinal is not “to avoid any wind turbine shutdowns.” Id.
(emphasis added). Rather, the goal of Cardinal is to provide “wind turbine
plant control and monitoring to operate the wind turbines within the wind
turbine plant within greater operational parameters during high wind
conditions without damaging the wind turbine components or prematurely
or unnecessarily shutting down the wind turbine.” Cardinal 1 5 (emphasis
added). As the Examiner notes Cardinal recognizes shut down may be
required during excessive wind events. Ans. 2—3 (citing Cardinal 124).
Thus, the purpose of Cardinal—to balance the risks of damage to the wind
turbine with the desire to continue operation of the wind farm by allowing
for more leeway in adjusting operational parameters—is not undermined by
the combination proposed by the Examiner.
In addition, Appellants argue that “there is no motivation in Wobben
to replace SODAR sensors with . . . with an indication that a wind turbine
has shut down.” Appeal Br. 12.
6
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error by the Examiner. As
the Examiner explains (Ans. 6) this argument “is a moot point, as Wobben
was not relied upon for such a teaching.” Rather, the Examiner relied upon
Wobben to “teach control of the secondary turbines based upon location
relative to the first turbine.” Id. at 7.
Appellants also urge that the Examiner’s reasoning is conclusory in
nature and the product of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Appeal
Br. 13. In particular, Appellants criticize the Examiner’s position that “one
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that shut down due to excessive
wind conditions represents a negative operating condition for turbines, and
would seek to use information to prevent negative effects on downstream
turbines.” Id.
We find no evidence that the Examiner relies on impermissible
hindsight reasoning as the Examiner’s articulated reasons for combining the
teachings of Cardinal, Wobben, and the AAPA are supported by the prior art
disclosures themselves. See, e.g., Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81
F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v.
Feil, 11A F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (“The invention must be viewed
not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have
been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention
was made.”). The Examiner reiterates
Cardinal in view of common knowledge discloses operation of
secondary turbines based upon conditions, such as shut down, at
a primary turbine. Wobben teaches the control of secondary
turbines based upon information from and relative positioning to
a primary turbine. Combining these teachings would result in
‘control of downwind turbines based upon upwind turbine
shutting down due to excessive speed. ’
7
Appeal 2017-005626
Application 14/123,257
Ans. 7. Thus, no utilization of impermissible hindsight is apparent.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20 as unpatentable over Cardinal in
view of Wobben and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12,
and 14—20 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
8