Ex Parte McEwen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13389336 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
13/389,336 09/13/2012 Luke Neil McEwen G021-7017US0 8408
21127 7590 08/02/2017
POT STNFT T T PC
EXAMINER
100 Cambridge Street
Suite 2101
WOLCOTT, BRIAN P
BOSTON, MA 02114 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
thendricks @polsinelli. com
athumann @polsinelli. com
DC-IPDocketing@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUKE NEIL MCEWEN, FREDERIC HERVE LOUARN,
JULIEN SELLIER, and ANTHONY JAMES CHIGNELL
Appeal 2017-007143
Application 13/389,336
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 7—9, 11—15, 17, 29, 30, 33—35, 37, 38, and 62. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We REVERSE.
1 This case came before the Board on regularly scheduled oral hearing on
July 20, 2017.
Appeal 2017-007143
Application 13/389,336
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to an attachment for attaching the root of
a wind turbine blade to a hub. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A wind or tidal turbine blade having an attachment, the
attachment comprising:
a support portion of the turbine blade, the support portion
having opposite surfaces and an end face;
an insert adapted to mount a bolt for attaching the support
portion to another structure, the insert having a rear face that
abuts the end face of the support portion; and
a mounting for fitting the insert to the support portion, the
mounting comprising a strap molding of a fibre reinforced
composite material, the strap molding extending over and
dimensioned to fit against a front face of the insert and the strap
molding is fitted and bonded to the opposite surfaces of the
support portion on opposite sides of the insert so that the strap
molding is in contact with the opposite surfaces of the support
portion and the front face of the insert, the strap molding
permitting passage of a bolt therethrough to or from the insert.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
German US 2,297,142
Kohl US 4,788,088
Eckland US 4,915,590
Kildegaard US 7,163,378 B2
Cairo US 2007/0154317 A1
Sept. 29, 1942
Nov. 29, 1988
Apr. 10, 1990
Jan. 16, 2007
July 5, 2007
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 7—8, 11—15, 17, 29, 30, 33—35, 37, and 38 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eckland and Cairo.
2
Appeal 2017-007143
Application 13/389,336
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Eckland, Cairo, and German.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Eckland, Cairo, and Kildegaard
4. Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eckland, Cairo, and Kohl.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 7—8, 11—15, 17, 29, 30, 33—35, 37, and 38
over Eckland and Cairo
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Eckland discloses the invention as claimed
except for using fiber reinforced composite material for the strap molding.
Final Action 6—7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Eckland’s adaptor
ring 27 corresponds to Appellants’ claimed strap molding. Id. The
Examiner further finds that the adaptor ring is bonded to Eckland’s blade
root by means of filler material that fills the space between the rotor blade
outer surface and the adaptor ring inner surface. Id., see also Eckland, col.
5,11. 30—32. The Examiner relies on Cairo as disclosing the use of fiber
reinforced composite material. Id. at 7. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify Eckland to use fiber reinforced composite
material for the strap molding. Id. at 8. According to the Examiner, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this due to material
availability. Id.
Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing, among other things, that
Eckland’s adaptor ring 27 is not bonded to the support portion of the turbine
3
Appeal 2017-007143
Application 13/389,336
blade as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellants, being “bonded”
requires either adhesive or curing of the resin matrix. Id. (citing Spec. 177).
Appellants argue that Eckland’s filler material is not a bonding material. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that Eckland’s layer of filler material
is used as a bonding agent to ensure the blade root is securely fitted in the
adaptor ring. Ans. 14 {citing Eckland col. 5,11. 30-37). The Examiner finds
that the filler material satisfies the plain and ordinary meaning of “bond” as
“a material or device for binding.” Id.2 According to the Examiner,
the layer of filler material may be considered as part of the
adapter ring of Eckland, in the same fashion the adhesive layer
(48) or resin matrix is considered part of the strap molding (24)
of the instant application since the filler material of Eckland
performs the equivalent function as the adhesive layer (48) or
resin matrix of the instant application in securing the support
portion and the insert to the strap molding.
Id.
Eckland discloses a wind turbine rotor blade attachment system.
Eckland, Abstract. Eckland uses sucker rods 15 disposed along a substantial
length of the rotor blade and expressly discloses that sucker rods 15 disposed
in the root of the rotor blade 11 exhibit a “substantial unbonded length.”
Eckland, col. 4,11. 56—58. Eckland’s Background section discusses
problems in the prior art with “adhesive bonds.” Eckland, col. 2,11. 45—47.
Eckland further teaches that:
The present invention also contemplates a new and novel
method for attaching a rotor blade of a wind turbine to the hub
of the rotational shaft thereof. The method involves providing a
multiplicity of sucker rods disposed internally around the
periphery of the hub end or root of the rotor blade where it
2 Citing Meriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/bond.
4
Appeal 2017-007143
Application 13/389,336
attaches to the hub. Only a portion of the length of the sucker
rods are bonded to the blade root with the ends of the sucker
rod which attach to the hub of the shaft and a substantial
portion of the length of the sucker rods adjacent to those free or
root ends being unbonded to the rotor blade.
Id. at col. 3,11. 11—22. Thus, when Eckland wants to discuss adhesive
bonding, it knows how to do so and specifically uses the term “bond” in
doing so.
Specifically with respect to the filler material interposed between the
blade root and adapter ring, Eckland teaches:
When the rotor blade 11 is secured to the turbine shaft hub 13,
it is fitted into an adapte[r] ring 27 which is formed to abut the
hub surface and receive the blade root. A filler material is
utilized to fill the space between the rotor blade outer surfaces
and the adapter ring inner surface.
Id. at col. 5,11. 27—32. The filler material is described as filling a space and
there is no mention of the filler material adhering to a surface of either the
adapter ring 27 or the blade root.
Having reviewed and considered the competing positions of the
Examiner and the Appellants on the “bonding” issue, we find that the
Appellants’ position is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The
Examiner errs in finding that Eckland satisfies the limitation in claim 1
directed to a strap molding being fitted and bonded to the opposite surfaces
of the support portion of the blade root and on opposite sides of the insert.
Thus, the Examiner fails in making out a prima facie case for the
unpatentability rejection of claim 1 and, accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-007143
Application 13/389,336
Claims 7-8, 11-15, 17, 29, 30, 33-35, 37, and 38
Claims 7—8, 11—15, 17, 29, 30, 33—35, 37, and 38 depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 1. Claims App. The rejection of these claims suffers
from the same infirmity that we have identified above with respect to
claim 1. For the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1, we
do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 7—8, 11—15, 17, 29, 30,
33—35, 37, and 38.
Unpatentability of Claims 3, 9, and 62
over Combinations Based on Eckland and Cairo
Claims 3, 9, and 62 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
Claims App. The Examiner rejects claims 3,9, and 62 over Eckland and
Cairo, together with various additional references. Final Action 12—15. The
Examiner makes no findings, however, that cure the deficiency we have
identified above with the Eckland reference.
Consequently, for essentially the same reasons articulated above with
respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the unpatentability rejections of
claims 3, 9, and 62.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 7—9, 11—15, 17, 29,
30, 33-35, 37, 38, and 62 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6