Ex Parte Laurberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201713558417 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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. 13/558,417 07/26/2012 Hans Laurberg 2011P07840US 9320 22116 7590 12/04/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER HANN, JAY B Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2017 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS LAURBERG and ANDERS NYGAARD RASMUSSEN Appeal 2016-005467 Application 13/558,417 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Second Rejection of claims 1—12, and 14—16, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-005467 Application 13/558,417 A. THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to “a method of optimi[z]ing a construction of a basis of a wind turbine comprising at least a tower and a foundation on which the tower rests” (Spec. 12). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of optimising a construction of a basis of a wind turbine, the basis comprising at least a tower and a foundation on which the tower rests, both the tower and the foundation comprising a carrying structure each, the method comprising: analysing through operation of at least one processor, a local load environment situation of a construction location where the wind turbine is to be built and deriving from that analysis local load-relevant environment data and a direction of loads predicted from the local load-relevant environment data, through operation of the at least one processor, retrieving from a database a set of predefined rules for processing the local load-relevant environment data in which at least one rule specifies that diameters along a circumference of the tower in at least one of its horizontal cross sections differ, creating through operation of the at least one processor construction instructions for structuring the basis, based at least in part on the direction of loads predicted from the local load-relevant environment data and on the set of predefined rules including the at least one rule, such that in a first selected region of the basis along a circumference of the tower the carrying structure of the 2 Appeal 2016-005467 Application 13/558,417 basis is weakened in at least one selected horizontal cross-section with respect to possible maximum loads in comparison with a second region of the basis in the selected horizontal cross-section by decreasing a thickness of at least one shell at the circumference of the tower in the first selected region relative to a thickness of at least one shell in the second region, while compensating at least in part for the weakened first selected region by making at least one first diameter along the circumference of the tower in the selected horizontal cross-section that extends to the first selected region, larger relative to a second diameter along the circumference of the tower in the selected horizontal cross-section that extends to the second region based on the direction of loads predicted from the local load relevant environment data, and outputting through operation of the at least one processor the construction instructions for further processing. C. REJECTION Claims 1—8, 12, 14, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lavassas et al. (“Analysis and Design of the Prototype of a Steel 1 -MW Wind Turbine tower,” ENGINEERING STRUCTURES, vol. 25, pp. 1097-1106, 2003), Moser et al. (US 2012/0161443 Al; pub. Jun. 28, 2012), Rasmussen (US 2011/0271634 Al; pub. Nov. 10, 2011), and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). II. ISSUES The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lavassas, Moser, Rasmussen, and AAPA teaches or suggests a “method of optimizing a construction of a basis of a wind 3 Appeal 2016-005467 Application 13/558,417 turbine,” comprising “creating . . . construction instructions,” such that, in a first selected region along a circumference of the tower, the carrying structure of the basis is “weakened in at least one selected horizontal cross- section” in comparison with a second region by “decreasing a thickness of at least one shell at the circumference of the tower in the first selected region relative to a thickness of at least one shell in the second region,” while “compensating” at least in part for the weakened first selected region by “making at least one first diameter along the circumference of the tower in the selected horizontal cross-section that extends to the first selected region, larger relative to a second diameter . . .based on the direction of loads predicted from the local load-relevant environment data” (claim 1). III. ANALYSIS Appellants point out that the Examiner admits that “Lavassas fails to disclose rules having the recited different diameters feature,” but relies on Moser to overcome this deficiency (App. Br. 14, citing Office Act. 5). Appellants contend that Moser does not disclose or suggest “a database having predefined rules in which at least one rule specifies that diameters along a circumference of the tower in at least one of its horizontal cross sections differ” (id.). Appellants also point out that the Examiner admits that “Lavassas and Moser do not teach the recited step of ‘decreasing a thickness of a tower shell relative to a second region of the same horizontal cross-section,’” but instead relies on Rasmussen to overcome this deficiency (App. Br. 15, citing Office Act. 6). Appellants contend that Rasmussen does not disclose that “different wall segments in the same horizontal cross-section have different 4 Appeal 2016-005467 Application 13/558,417 thicknesses” (id. 15—16). According to Appellants, “Rasmussen only recognizes different steel qualities and thickness are applicable to different vertical heights of the tower” wherein “[o]nly through the improper use of hindsight in view of Appellants’ own disclose would one regard this discussion in Rasmussen as referring to iteratively changing the thickness of different shells in the same horizontal cross-section” (id. 16). Appellants further contend the Examiner does not explain any reason to decrease a thickness of at least one shell at the circumference of the tower in the first selected region relative to a thickness of at least one shell in the second region “based on the direction of loads predicted from the local load relevant environmental data” (id., emphasis omitted). After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of evidence supports Appellants’ position. In particular, we agree with Appellants and do not find any teaching or suggestion in the referenced portions of “decreasing a thickness of at least one shell” at the circumference of the tower in a first region relative to another in another (“second”) region in “the [same] selected horizontal cross-section” while “compensating at least in part for the weakened first selected region” by “making at least one first diameter ... in the selected horizontal cross-section that extends to the first selected region, larger” relative to a second diameter that extends to the second region “based on the direction of loads predicted from the local load relevant environmental data,” as required by claim 1. In particular, even though we agree with the Examiner that Rasmussen teaches that “[t]he wall thickness may vary throughout the tower” (Ans. 5, citing Rasmussen at 32), we agree with Appellants that 5 Appeal 2016-005467 Application 13/558,417 Rasmussen does not disclose that “different wall segments in the same horizontal cross-section have different thicknesses” (App. Br. 15—16). Appellants contend, and we agree, “Rasmussen only recognizes different steel qualities and thickness are applicable to different vertical heights of the tower” {id. 16, emphasis omitted). Further, we also agree Appellants that the Examiner does not explain any reason to decrease a thickness of at least one shell at the circumference of the tower in the first selected region relative to a thickness of at least one hell in the second region “based on the direction of loads predicted from the local load-relevant environmental data” {id., emphasis omitted). That is, we are unable to find any teaching or suggestion in the cited portions of the references of “compensating” for any “weakened” region by making one diameter extending to the first selected region, larger relative to the diameter extending to the second region “based on the direction of loads predicted from the local load-relevant environmental data,” as required by claim 1. In particular, we do not find, and the Examiner does not point to any portion in the cited references of any teaching or suggestion of “compensating” step. To affirm the Examiner’s finding of obviousness would require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. We do not resort to hindsight reconstruction, speculation, or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the proffered combination in order to support the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Because we find at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. 6 Appeal 2016-005467 Application 13/558,417 Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claim 1, independent claims 14—16 reciting similar limitations, and claims 2—12 depending from claim 1, over Lavassas, Moser, Rasmussen and AAPA.1 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—12, and 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 1 Although not before us, we observe all steps of at least claim 1 could be performed as mental steps by a person or by the person using a pen and paper. In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the Examiner to review all the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). In particular, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the claims’ method comprising the steps of “analyzing,” “retrieving,” “creating” and “outputting” various forms of data can be performed either mentally or with a pencil and paper. The Examiner’s attention is also directed to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that a method for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet to be nonstatutory as an abstract idea capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 1213.02. 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation