Ex Parte Kjær et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 1, 201714123257 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation