Ex Parte Ricker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2004

09482038 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2004)

1 In the event of further prosecution, the lack of proper
antecedent basis for the terms “the vibration absorbing means” in
claim 28 and “the bearing” in claim 32 should be corrected.
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JONATHAN C. RICKER
____________
Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, MCQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Jonathan C. Ricker appeals from the final rejection of
claims 21 through 38, all of the claims pending in the
application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a multi-axis turbine for harnessing
wind energy. Representative claim 21 reads as follows:1
21. A multiaxis turbine, comprising:
Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
2
a tower structure supported on the ground and comprising a
plurality of vertical elongated structural members connected by a
plurality of horizontal elongated structural members, the tower
structure forming a box-like structure with at least two active
sides;
a plurality of vertical shafts located coextensively with
the active sides of the tower structure, each shaft carrying a
plurality of blades adapted to be rotated by the wind, so that
the shafts are rotated by the wind;
wherein each shaft is supported by a plurality of the
horizontal structural members coupled to the shaft at spaced
locations along the shaft, with one support location proximate
the top of each shaft, one support location proximate the bottom
of each shaft, and at least one support location intermediate the
top and bottom support locations;
one or more electric generators located proximate the
ground; and
means for connecting each shaft to a generator, to generate
electricity from the wind energy.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Kelly 4,119,863 October 10, 1978
Thomas 5,332,925 July 26, 1994
THE REJECTION
Claims 21 through 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Thomas.
Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
2 The final rejection (Paper No. 7) contained an additional
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, which was
subsequently withdrawn by the examiner (see page 2 in the
answer).
3
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 10) and answer
(Paper No. 11) for the respective positions of the appellant and
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Kelly, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a solar
panel and wind turbine assembly 1 which includes a horizontal
open framework 2, solar panels 3 containing solar cells 4 carried
on the framework, vertical posts 5 supporting the framework above
a surface (e.g., a roof) and vertical wind turbines 6 rotatably
mounted on the vertical posts. Each turbine consists of a vaned
rotor 6a, a fairing hood 6b and a generator housing and drive
assembly 6c. Of particular interest in this appeal is the
relationship between the vane rotors and the vertical posts:
The vaned rotor consists of a top and bottom rotor
disc, along with two intermediate discs, as four
identical rotor discs 6d. The four, or more, discs 6d,
are slotted to retain the flat, thin vertical vanes or
blades 6e, of the vaned rotor 6a.
Since the vaned rotor 6a, is slotted to facilitate
assembly, orbiting ball bearings 6f, must be utilized
to allow the rotor to spin freely on the vertical
support posts 5.
The orbiting ball bearings 6f, at the top and
bottom of the vaned rotor 6a, will be positioned on the
rotor discs 6d, by the bearing 6g.
Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
4
Because the rotor discs 6d, are slotted with the
slots 6h, an additional “lock in” ball bearing 6f, and
bearing plate 6j, are required to retain the vaned
rotor 6a, on the support posts 5.
A flat, possibly split, gear 6k, is located under
the lower rotor ball bearing 6f, and is held in place
by the bearing pins 6g, which meshes with a pinion 6L,
on the electrical generator 6m.
The electrical generator 6m, is securely mounted
on a base plate secured to the roof, and a sheet metal
housing 6n, covers and protects these components.
A clamp-on collar 6p, is locked onto the vertical
support post 5, under the top rotor disc 6d. A ball
thrust bearing 6r, is fitted between the underside of
the top rotor disc 6d, and the clamp-on collar 6p, to
support the revolving weight of the vaned rotor 6a
[column 6, line 67, through column 7, line 25].
The examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter recited in
the appealed claims would have been obvious within the meaning of
§ 103(a) rests in large part on a finding (see pages 3 and 4 in
the answer) that Kelly’s vertical posts 5 meet the limitation in
independent claim 1, and the similar limitation in independent
claim 38, requiring “a plurality of vertical shafts . . . each
shaft carrying a plurality of blades adapted to be rotated by the
wind, so that the shafts are rotated by the wind.” Kelly,
however, does not provide any evidentiary support for this
finding. To the contrary, a fair reading of Kelly indicates that
the vertical posts 5 are static structures which are not rotated
by the wind. Moreover, Kelly does not disclose any other
structure, including that defined by the vane rotors 6a, which
Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
5
reasonably can be interpreted as embodying shafts of the sort in
question. Hence, it follows that Kelly also fails to meet the
limitations in claims 21 and 38 relating to the support of the
shafts by the horizontal structural members.
The disclosure by Thomas of a vertical windmill 10
comprising a support frame 32, support bars 34 and a rotatable
central shaft 20 carrying air foils 30 does not cure the
foregoing deficiencies of the Kelly assembly relative to the
subject matter recited in claims 21 and 38. The only suggestion
for combining these disparate devices so as to arrive at the
subject matter recited in these claims stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Thus, the combined teachings of Kelly and Thomas do not
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in independent claims 21 and 38 and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. Consequently, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21
and 38, and dependent claims 22 through 37, as being unpatentable
over Kelly in view of Thomas.
Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
6
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 21 through 38
is reversed.
REVERSED

NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/gjh
Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
7
BRIAN M. DINGMAN
MIRICK O’CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE
100 LLP FRONT STREET
WORCESTER, MA 01608