Ex Parte Paggi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

14031566 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
14/031,566 09/19/2013 Raymond E. Paggi PAGG-001 .CON 2436
21884 7590 09/27/2017
WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC
2000 DUKE STREET, SUITE 100
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
KOSANOVIC, HELENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND E. PAGGI
Appeal 2016-002124
Application 14/031,566
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant (Raymond E. Paggi) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—11.1 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Although claim 10 was indicated as allowable over the prior art, at the time
of this appeal this claim remains rejected on obvious-type double patenting
grounds. (See Final Action 3, 6; see also Answer 7.)
Appeal 2016-002124
Application 14/031,566
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention relates to “small wind turbines” and
“systems that can be mounted along the ridge of a gabled roof building to
capture wind energy and benefit from the wind deflected to the ridge by the
sloped face of the roof.” (Spec. 2.)
Sole Independent Claim
6. A wind energy harnessing system for buildings having
a roof ridge with a longitudinal axis, comprising:
an enclosure having a longitudinal axis, the enclosure
mounted along a roof ridge of a building and extending down
both sides of the a roof of the building;
the enclosure including plural spaced columns forming
opposed sidewalls and wind pivoting louvers supported above
the columns;
at least one paddle-wheel type wind turbine having a
rotatable shaft which supports multiple radially spaced blades
that when contacted by wind cause the shaft to rotate producing
rotational work;
the at least one paddle-wheel type wind turbine is
mounted to and within the enclosure such that the shaft and
blades are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the enclosure;
a generator connected to the at least one paddle-wheel
type wind turbine for converting the rotational work to
electrical energy; and
wherein the roof of the building, the opposed sidewalls
and the wind pivoting louvers form airflow guides for capturing
and directing wind into the blades of the at least one paddle-
wheel type wind turbine before the wind reaches the roof ridge.
References
Bristol
Mihalko
Nightingale
Paggi
US 3,143,953
US 6,159,093
US 8,120,193 B2
US 8,545,298 B2
Aug. 11, 1964
Dec. 12, 2000
Feb. 21,2012
Oct. 1,2013
2
Appeal 2016-002124
Application 14/031,566
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 6—9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nightingale, Mihalko, and Bristol. (Final
Action 3.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 6—11 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1^4 of
US Patent No. 8,545,298. (Final Action 3.)
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 6 recites a “wind energy harnessing system”
comprising a “paddle-wheel type wind turbine having a rotatable shaft
which supports multiple radially spaced blades that when contacted by wind
cause the shaft to rotate producing rotational work.” (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) The Examiner finds that Nightingale discloses a wind energy
conversion system comprising turbines with rotatable shafts and radially
spaced blades. (See Final Action 4; see also Answer 7.) Nightingale
describes its turbines 12 as each comprising a wind rotor 30 (i.e., a
propeller) coupled to a drive shaft 32. (See Nightingale, col. 2,11. 47—53;
Fig. 1.) Nightingale’s turbines 12 are shown supported on a pitched roof
structure 14, and more particularly in a ridge region 22 between the roof’s
two sloping sides 18 and 20. (See id., col. 2,11. 22—26, Fig. 1.)
Independent claim 6 also recites an “enclosure mounted along a roof
ridge of a building and extending down both sides of the [] roof of the
building.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Nightingale’s
system comprises such an enclosure. (See Final Action 4.) In Nightingale, a
“cover 16 overlies an upper portion 26 of the roof structure 14 and extends to
3
Appeal 2016-002124
Application 14/031,566
opposite sides of the ridge region 22.” (Nightingale, col. 2,11. 31—33, see also
id. Fig. 1.) According to Nightingale, “the cover 16 and the upper portion 26
of the roof structure create or act as a wind tunnel 28 that directs wind W
flowing upwardly on the sides 18 and 20 through the turbines 12.” {Id.,
col. 2,11. 33-36.)
Independent claim 6 further requires the wind turbine to be mounted
“such that the shaft and blades are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
enclosure.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In Nightingale, “[t]he drive shaft 32,
and thus the axis of rotation of the propeller 30 is perpendicular or transverse
to a line or direction of extent of the ridge region 22.” (Nightingale, col. 2,
11. 49-51, see also id. Fig. 1.) In other words, Nightingale’s propeller
blades 30 and shaft 32 have a perpendicular orientation relative to the
longitudinal axis of the roof 14 and/or cover 16.
The Examiner finds that Mihalko teaches “shafts and blades [that] are
parallel to the longitudinal axes of [an] enclosure.” (Final Action 5.)
Mihalko discloses “a powered exhaust fan system [] for ventilation” that
includes a “fan assembly 9” that is “supported below [a] roof structure 3.”
(Mihalko, col. 3,11. 16—21; see also id. Fig. 1.) Mihalko’s fan assembly 9
“includes an impeller 11” and “[i]mpeller 11 includes a set of blades 47
radiating from an impeller shaft 45.” {Id. col. 3,11. 21—22, col. 4,11. 55—56.)
In Mihalko’s illustrated fan assembly 9, impeller shaft 45 is aligned with “a
[v]ent cover 23” that “spans the length of roof.” {Id., col. 3,11. 38, 46-47,
see also id. Figs. 1—3.) In other words, Mihalko’s impeller blades 47 and
impeller shaft 45 have a parallel orientation relative to the longitudinal axis
of the roof 3 and/or cover 23.
4
Appeal 2016-002124
Application 14/031,566
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
substitute” Nightingale’s perpendicular shaft orientation and propeller-blade
type with Mihalko’s parallel shaft orientation and impeller-blade type.
(Final Action 5.) According to the Examiner, this modification would be
“substitution of one known element for another” and “would have yield
predictable results of ventilating the roof.” (Id.)
The Appellant argues that “[t]he proposed rationale for substituting
the powered exhaust fan of Mihalko for the turbine of Nightingale makes no
sense” and is not “a simple substitution of one known element for another.”
(Appeal Br. 9.) We are persuaded by this argument because the Examiner
provides us with no insight as to why one of ordinary skill in art would need
or want to ventilate Nightingale’s roof with exhaust air. Moreover, as
indicated above, independent claim 6 requires the blades to cause, when
contacted by wind, “the shaft to rotate producing rotational work.” (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) The Examiner does not adequately explain how or why
this would still occur if Nightingale is modified to have “[a] powered
exhaust fan [that] is driven by electricity to move air” instead of “a wind
turbine [that] is driven by air to produce electricity.” (Id. at 9.)
The Examiner later implies that Mihalko can be relied upon “only to
show” that shaft and blades parallel to the longitudinal axis of an enclosure
“are well known in the art.” (Answer 8.) However, a modification calling
for Nightingale’s wind-energy-conversion turbines 12 to be repositioned in a
parallel orientation still may not quality as a “simple substitution.” This
modification would appear to require the “re-engineer[ing]” of Nightingale’s
roof structure 3, its ridge region 22, its wind tunnel 28, and/or its propeller
blades 30. (See Appeal Br. 9.) Here, we have no findings on the record that
5
Appeal 2016-002124
Application 14/031,566
these modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art and/or would not have been detrimental to Nightingale’s wind-energy-
conversion objectives.
The Examiner’s findings and determinations with respect to Bristol
and pivoting louvers (see Final Action 5—6) do not compensate for the
above-discussed shortcoming in the combined teachings of Nightingale and
Bristol. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 6, and the claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nightingale, Mihalko, and Bristol.
Rejection II
As noted by the Examiner, “all claims are rejected” for obviousness-
type double patenting but the “double patenting rejection is not addressed in
the Appeal Brief.” (Answer 7.) As the Appellant likewise fails to address
this rejection in the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 1—5), we summarily sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 6—11.
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
6