Ex Parte Le Besnerais

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2017

13251423 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
13/251,423 10/03/2011 Jean Le Besnerais 2010P14897US 9373
22116 7590 11/29/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
MIKAILOFF, STEFAN
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2017 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 JEAN LE BESNERAIS1
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
Technology Center 2800
Before: JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 10—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft, the assignee of the above-captioned application. Appeal
Br. 3.
2 In our Decision we refer to the Specification originally filed October 3,
2011, as amended, (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action appealed from dated
February 1, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 5, 2016 (Appeal
Br.), and the Examiner’s Answer dated December 6, 2016 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to a generator for use in a wind
turbine including a cooling fin arrangement that permits heat flow from the
permanent magnets to the cooling fin. Spec. 1. Claim 10, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
10. A wind turbine generator, comprising:
a rotor comprising a rotor yoke and a plurality of magnets
arranged in a circumferential direction of the rotor yoke;
a stator about which the rotor rotates;
an air gap disposed between the stator and at least one of
the plurality of magnets; and
a cooling fin arranged on an outer side of the rotor yoke
by a connection device on an inner side of the cooling fin,
wherein the cooling fin is connected to at least one of the
plurality of magnets by the connection device.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App’x).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
A. Claims 10-12, 17, 18, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klinger3 in
view of Vasilescu.4 Final Act. 3.
3 Friedrich Klinger, DE 19636591 Al, published March 12, 1998
(“Klinger”).
4 Vasilescu et al., US 2007/0069596 Al, published March 29, 2007
(“Vasilescu”).
2
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
B. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klinger, Vasilescu, and further in view
of Costin.5 Id. at 5.
C. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Klinger, Vasilescu, and further
in view of Workman.6 Id. at 6.
D. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klinger, Vasilescu, and further in view
of Ward.7 Id. at 7.
E. Claims 19-21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Klinger, Vasilescu, and further in
view of Workman. Id.
Appellant seeks our review of Rejections A—E. See generally Appeal
Br. Appellant presents arguments for claims 10, 19, 21, and 22 (Rejection
A) and do not present any argument for claims 11—18, 20, and 23
(Rejections B—E) separate from what is argued for claims 10, 19, 21, and 22.
Id. at 12—14. Therefore, we focus our discussion below on Rejection A as
applied to claims 10, 19, 21, and 22 to resolve the issues on appeal.
5 Daniel P. Costin, US 2006/0113804 Al, published June 1, 2006 (“Costin”).
6 John Workman, WO 85/05232, published November 21, 1985
(“Workman”).
7 Ward et al., US 6,653,759 Bl, issued November 25, 2003 (“Ward”).
3
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
OPINION
Claims 10 and 19:
Independent claims 10 and 198 are, in relevant part, substantially
similar. Compare Appeal Br. 16 with 17. The Examiner makes similar
findings with respect to claims 10 and 19. Compare Final Act. 3^4 with 7—
9. The Examiner finds that Klinger teaches all aspects of claims 10 and 19
and that the
cooling fin (cooling fins 13) [is] arranged on an outer side of the
rotor yoke by a connection device (cooling fins 13 are thermally
connected to permanent magnets 10 via, at least, cylindrical rotor
yoke 12) on an inner side of the cooling fin, wherein the cooling
fin is connected to at least one of the plurality of magnets by the
connection device (see Figure 3).
Id. at 3 and 8. The Examiner alternatively finds that if Appellant “claim[s] a
separate and distinct ‘connection device,’” then Vasilescu teaches the
claimed configuration. Id. at 4 and 8—9. With respect to the connection
device, Vasilescu discloses “the cooling fin (80) is connected to the rotor (at
free end 78 of heat pipe 76) by the connection device (76).” Id. The
Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would modify Klinger to include
the connection device of Vasilescu “for the purpose of increasing the cooling
capacity of the device . . . thereby increasing the conversion energy and
expected life of the device.” Id. at 4 and 9.
8 Claim 19 requires that the air gap is “disposed between the stator and the
plurality of magnets,” as opposed to “at least one of the plurality of
magnets” in claim 10, and adds “a turbulator arranged between two
neighboring magnets of the plurality of magnets . . . .” Appeal Br. 16—17
(emphasis added).
4
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
Appellant first argues that the Examiner has failed “to properly put
Applicant on notice as to what the Examiner believes is taught by the
reference” because of contradictory statements and the failure of the
Examiner to identify the “connection device” of Klinger. Appeal Br. 9—10.
We disagree. The Examiner’s basis for the rejection appropriately
relies on two alternative theories—one where the connection device is
“separate and distinct” (Klinger in view of Vasilescu) and one where it is not
(Klinger). Final Act. 3^4. Accordingly, this argument fails to identify
reversible error in the rejection.
Next, Appellant argues that Klinger fails to disclose a cooling fin
connected to a plurality of magnets by a connection device. Appeal Br. 10.
Instead, Appellant urges that “Klinger merely discloses connecting fins 13
to the yoke 12.” Id.
Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error by the Examiner.
The Examiner explains that although “Klinger does not make explicit the
means (or “device”) for connection, but the magnets 10 are connected to
cooling fins 13.” Ans. 5. The Examiner provides an annotated copy of
Klinger Figure 3, reproduced below, to further explain the rejection. Id.
5
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
cooling fin 13
The Examiner determines that the cooling fins 13 are connected to the
plurality of magnets 10 by the yoke 12. Id. According to the Examiner,
Klinger teaches “‘[t]he yoke (12) of the rotor[... ] bears on the inside [... ]
individual permanent elements which are bonded to the yoke.” In addition
to this physical connection, the Examiner finds Klinger describes a thermal
connection. Id. at 6. The Examiner relies upon Klinger’s teachings that
cooling fins 13 provide a cooling surface that “ensures intensive cooling of
the temperature-sensitive permanent magnets (10) by the free flowing
against ambient air.” Klinger 2. The Examiner reasons that there must be a
connection device, otherwise, during operation, there would be no cooling.
Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 3 (“a connection device (cooling fins 13 are
thermally connected to magnets 10 via, at least, cylindrical yoke 12)”).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the cooling fins are connected to the
6
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
plurality of magnets both thermally and physically. Id. We discern no
reversible error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Lastly, Appellant contends that Vasilescu’s heat pipe is not the same
as Appellant’s claimed connection device. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues
that nothing in Vasilescu “teaches or remotely suggests that heat pipe 76
includes those features recited in the claims for the connection device, i.e., a
connection device for connecting a cooling fin to a magnet.” Id. Appellant
explains that “inserting the heat pipe 76 between the axial orientation teeth
of the magnet wheels ... is not the same as Applicant’s claimed connection
device” and a “person[] of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that
magnet wheels disclosed in Vasil are not the same as a permanent magnet.”
Id. at 11—12.
Appellant’s arguments reveal no reversible error. The Examiner
states that Vasilescu does teach a connection device arranged on the outside
of a rotor by a connection device and provides an annotated version of
Figure 11 A and B of Vasilescu, reproduced below.
7
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
stator 3 inner side of
According to the Examiner Vasilescu further teaches that the “heat pipe 76
may be inserted into the ‘magnet wheels of a claw pole rotor’” and states
that “‘the heat pipes are installed in the teeth of the magnet wheels.” Ans.
9 (citing Vasilescu 1185). Vasilescu further explains that alternatively “one
or more heat pipes 76 are inserted into rotor 1, in this instance into its
laminations” and the rotor “includes laminations in which field windings and
permanent magnets are alternatively included.” Vasilescu Tflf 184—185.
Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
findings.
Furthermore, the Examiner relies on Klinger to teach a “plurality of
magnets” and “Vasilescu is relied upon for teaching a connection of a
‘magnet wheel’ (which could clearly contain magnets) to a ‘cooling fin’ by a
‘connection device,’as required by the claims.” Ans. 10. Thus, Appellant’s
argument that Vasilescu fails to teach a connection device that connects the
cooling fin to a magnet, amounts to an attack on Vasilescu individually,
8
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
rather than the combined teachings of the references. Appellant identifies
no reversible error by focusing on the teachings of Vasilescu and neglecting
to address the combined teachings of Klinger and Vasilescu as presented by
the Examiner.
Claims 21 and 22:
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claims 19 and 10 respectively. See
Appeal Br. 16—17. Claims 21 and 22 additionally require that “the
connection device is integrally formed on the inner side of the cooling fin.”
Id. at 17 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Vasilescu discloses and
integrally formed connection device. Appeal Br. 5 and (citing Vasilescu 1
188).
Appellant makes nominal arguments with respect to claims 21 and 22.
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s representations about
claims 21 and 22 . . . [are] again mistaken, as none of the references disclose
the claimed connection device, much less one integrally formed with the
cooling fin.” Id.
To the extent Appellant presents argument for claims 21 and 22, in
addition to those advanced for claims 10 and 19, Appellant’s argument—i.e.,
simply reiterating the claim limitations and stating the element is missing—
does not amount to a separate patentability argument and is unpersuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-
9
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3^1 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Apart from summarily asserting the references fail to teach the identified
claim language, Appellant’s arguments “do not. . . explain why the
Examiner’s explicit fact finding is in error.” Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843 at
*4
CONCLUSION
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10-12, 17, 18, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Klinger in view of Vasilescu.
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Klinger, Vasilescu, and further in view of Costin.
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klinger, Vasilescu, and further in view of Workman.
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Klinger, Vasilescu, and further in view of Ward.
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Klinger, Vasilescu, and further in view of Workman.
10
Appeal 2017-005645
Application 13/251,423
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—23 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
11