Ex Parte Nielsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13431014 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
13/431,014 03/27/2012 Soeren E. Nielsen 2010P20969US 7067
22116 7590 01/10/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2017 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 SOEREN E. NIELSEN
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 27, 2012 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Feb. 13, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Oct. 6, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb. 25,
2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 12, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to optimizing wind park construction by
selecting different blade topologies for different wind turbines, one for noise
optimization and the other for energy efficiency optimization. (Spec.
Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of optimising a wind park construction, the
wind park comprising at least a first wind turbine and a second
wind turbine, the method comprising:
selecting a first blade topology for the first wind turbine
depending on a noise optimisation parameter which is measured
and/or predicted at a reference position at a distance removed
from the wind park, and
selecting a second blade topology for the second wind
turbine depending on an energy efficiency optimisation
parameter.
(App. Br. 12 — Claims App’x.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gundling (US 2010/0138201 Al, published June 3, 2010) and Giguere (EP
2128441 Al, published Dec. 2, 2009). (App. Br. 7—10.)
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Gundling, Giguere, andNies (US 2009/0169390 Al,
published July 2, 2009). (App. Br. 10—12.)
Claims 4—6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gundling, Giguere, Nies, and Koegler (US 2009/0074585 Al, published
Mar. 19, 2009.) (App. Br. 13-14.)
2
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, and 11
Appellant argues the Examiner errs by finding Giguere teaches or
suggests the claimed feature that a noise optimization parameter is measured
and/or predicted at a distance removed from a wind park. (App. Br. 6—9.)
To the contrary, the Examiner contends the claimed feature is taught or at
least suggested by Giguere. (Ans. 3—7.)
Appellant and the Examiner cite different parts of paragraph 30 of
Giguere in support of their contentions. This paragraph states:
Another secondary plant design metric includes noise at and in
close proximity to each wind turbine within the wind power plant
200. In_ one embodiment, a noise model may be used to
determine the sound pressure level at any point of interest within
or in close proximity to site 300 based on the contribution of
sound pressure level of some or all of wind turbines 100. For
example, a method that utilizes a first order assessment of the
total noise at any point of interest based on the ISO standard
9613-2 on acoustics may be utilized to provide the secondary
plant design metric for noise.
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant’s argument focuses on the first sentence shown in italics to
support their contention that noise measurements are taken within the wind
power plant (i.e., site 300), not outside of it. The Examiner focuses on the
second sentence shown in underline to support the finding that the noise
model can be used to make noise predictions outside of the site 300.
However one of ordinary skill would construe the first sentence, we agree
with the Examiner the second and third sentences teach a noise measurement
is predicted, if not measured, with the noise model at a distance removed
3
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
from the wind park site. This finding is sufficient to teach the claimed
feature.
The Examiner also cites paragraph 18 and Figure 3 of Giguere. (Ans.
4.) Paragraph 18 states:
One embodiment of the present disclosure includes a method for
determining beneficial placement of a wind turbine within a wind
power plant over a particular region or site. FIG. 3 includes a
wind turbine site 300 bounded by boundary line 304. The site
300 includes a plurality of wind turbines 100 arranged therein.
The wind power plant 200 encompasses the plurality of wind
turbines 100 arranged on a variety of topography. The orography
includes elevation contour lines 301 delineating changes in
elevation within site 300. The surface roughness 302 represents
the ground cover and its influence on the wind conditions within
site 300. The topography is also important to consider if
significant dwellings and industrial buildings are in the vicinity.
In addition, site 300 shows an exclusion zone 303, which may be
a lake, unstable soil, inhospitable terrain or other area on which
a wind turbine cannot be located for any reason. Further, the site
300 may include or be in close proximity to noise sensitive areas
305, which may include homes, businesses, natural reserves, or
other areas that are sensitive or intolerant to noise or close
proximity to wind turbines 100. The exclusion zones 305 are not
limited to areas that are sensitive to noise, but may include areas
that are sensitive or intolerant to the presence of the wind turbine
100, the wind turbine structure (e.g., tower 104) or the associated
structures or support components (e.g., access roads or protective
fences, migratory bird paths, habitat area reduction concerns for
various animals, etc.).
(Emphasis added.)
Giguere, Figure 3, is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
Giguere Figure 3 shows a site 300 for wind turbines 100 bounded by
perimeter 304 and showing noise sensitive areas 305 outside of site 300.
Giguere 118.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the noise sensitive areas 305 in
Figure 3 are “removed” from the wind park site 300, i.e., are outside of the
perimeter 304 of the site 300. (Ans. 4.) Giguere, thus, teaches “a noise
optimisation parameter which is measured and/or predicted at a reference
position at a distance removed from the wind park” as claimed.
Finally, the Examiner cites additional evidence showing the noise
optimization parameter can be measured or predicted in Giguere. (Ans. 5
citing Giguere 120, Fig. 4.) Giguere, paragraph 20, states:
FIG. 4 shows an overall process flow diagram illustrating an
exemplary method according to an embodiment of the
disclosure. The method includes a pre-optimization set-up, step
400, a position determination, step 402 and a final layout, step
5
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
422. The pre optimization set-up, step 400, may include and is
not limited to the shown five categories: 1) coordinates of
important noise receptors and corresponding noise limits, step
405, 2) terrain topography and surface roughness, step 406, 3)
coordinate boundaries of the wind plant, step 407, 4) coordinate
boundaries of exclusion zones, step 408, and 5) wind and other
meteorological data measured on the site or predicted for the site
and other customer specified input information, step 409. The
inputs from steps 405. 406. 407. 408 and 409 may be supplied by
a customer or other entity or may be measured or determined in
any suitable manner. For example, the coordinates of important
noise receptors and noise limits, step 405, may be specified by a
wind turbine developer/operator/owner or may be determined by
physical surveying of the wind power plant area. "Coordinates",
as used herein, refer to relative positions and are not limited to a
particular location determining system. For example, the wind
turbine layout may be configured into an (x,y) coordinate plane
for purposes of identifying individual locations. However, the
present disclosure is not so limited.
(Emphasis added.)
Giguere Figure 4 is shown below:
Giguere Figure 4 shows coordinates of critical noise receptors and noise
limits as an input 405 for parameter optimization.
6
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
We agree with the Examiner that these disclosures of Giguere disclose
that noise optimization parameters can be measured or predicted, as recited
in the claims.
Appellant’s argument against the motivation to combine Gundling and
Giguere as failing to arrive at the claimed invention, or rendering Gundling
inoperable for its intended purpose, or changing the principle of operation of
Gundling, all hinge on the correctness of the assertion that noise
measurements in Giguere are taken only within, and not outside, the wind
park site 300. (App. Br. 9.) As we agree with the Examiner that Giguere
teaches noise measurements or predictions at sensitive areas outside of the
site 300, we do not agree with Appellant’s contention there is no motivation
to combine Gundling with Giguere.
Appellant argues Gundling teaches away from the noise optimization
parameter being measured and/or predicted at a distance removed from the
wind park. (App. Br. 9.) However, the Examiner relies on Giguere, not
Gundling, to teach this feature. Appellant has not identified a teaching in the
reference that criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the combination
of Gundling and Giguere. (See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004).)
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims and, therefore, we sustain their rejection for the reasons previously
stated. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
7
Appeal 2016-005031
Application 13/431,014
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8