Ex Parte SchibsbyeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201612968544 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/968,544 12/15/2010 Karsten Schibsbye 2010P09346US 2554 22116 7590 12/29/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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 KARSTEN SCHIBSBYE Appeal 2015-003928 Application 12/968,5441 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, AVELYN M. ROSS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the February 03, 2014 Final rejection of claims 19, 25, and 26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6. We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft of Munich, Germany. (App. Br. 1). 2 According to Appellant, claims 27—38 have been withdrawn from consideration and claims 1—18 and 20-24 have been canceled. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2015-003928 Application 12/968,544 Appellant’s invention relates to a mould for building up a blade suitable for use as wind turbine blade. (Spec. 2). Claim 19 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced from the Brief below: 19. A mould for building up a blade, the blade comprising a tip, a root, suction side, pressure side and a shear web connecting the suction side with the pressure side, comprising: a first mould part comprising a first inner surface corresponding to a shape of the pressure side of the blade, the first inner surface comprising an first integrated flow duct arranged along a path corresponding to where the shear web is to be attached on the pressure side of the blade; a second mould part comprising a second inner surface corresponding to a shape of the suction side of the blade, the second inner surface comprising a second integrated flow duct arranged along a path corresponding to where the shear web is to be attached on the suction side of the blade; wherein the upper mould part and lower mould part join together to form a cavity between the inner surface of the lower mould part and the inner surface of the upper mould part, the blade formed in the cavity, wherein the first flow duct and second flow duct are used for guiding injected matrix material. 2 Appeal 2015-003928 Application 12/968,544 The Examiner has maintained the following rejections: Claims 19 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Burchardt et al., EP 2 106 900 A1 (hereinafter Burchardt) in view of Eiebmann WO 2006/058541 Al.3 Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Burchardt, Liebmann, and Engleder DE 199 22 850 Cl.4 OPINION Appellant presents arguments specifically directed to the independent claim 19 only. (App. Br. 3—5). Therefore, the dependent claims 25 and 26 will stand or fall with their parent independent claim. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Answer, and below. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action (Final Act. 3—6) and the April 9, 2014 advisory action for a complete statement of the Examiner’s position. The Examiner found Burchardt teaches a mould for building up a blade wherein the shear web also comprises a fiber preform that must be filled with resin during mold filling (Burchardt || 31—37). The Examiner found Burchardt’s mould included flow ducts integrated into the molded 3 The Examiner added a discussion of Lang (US 6,406,659 Bl) in the Advisory Action mailed April 9, 2014. Since the Examiner did not modify the statement of the rejection to incorporate this reference, we will not address the teachings of this reference. 4 We rely upon the Thompson Routers® DWPI document accession number 2000-49921, as the English language document representing Engleder which has been entered to electronic working file. 3 Appeal 2015-003928 Application 12/968,544 parts. (Burchardt 137, Fig. 9). Burchardt discloses the inventive mould allows for forming fibre reinforced laminated structures by using a vacuum assisted resin transfer moulding process without leaving flow pipes in the finished structure. (Burchardt 138). The Examiner recognized Burchardt differed from the claimed invention in that the flow ducts were not arranged along a path corresponding to where the shear web is attached to the respective side of the blade. (Final Act. 4). The Examiner found Eiebmann discloses a mould for building up a blade comprising a plurality of flow ducts arranged between the leading edge and trailing edge of the blade structure and extending from the root end to the tip end of the blade (Final Act. 4; Liebmann 5,11. 1—3, Figs. 1 and 2). The Examiner found Eiebmann discloses it is critical to configure the ducts to function as flow channels and vacuum lines to avoid the occurrence of dry spots. (Final Act. 4; Liebmann 3,11. 10-28). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to incorporate a plurality of flow ducts in the mould of Burchardt to ensure that the filling of the mold with the resin as discussed by Liebmann. (Final Act. 4-5). Appellant argues Burchardt and Liebmann do not teach the claim requirement that the two flow ducts of the two mould parts are arranged along a path corresponding to where the shear web is attached to the respective side of the blade, and that the flow ducts are integrated into the mould parts. Appellant argues Burchardt provides flow ducts at the leading/trailing edges of the blade to be formed however, Burchardt does not provide any motivation or suggestion to modify the mould parts with regard to the flow ducts. (App. Br. 3). Appellant argues Liebmann does not teach a 4 Appeal 2015-003928 Application 12/968,544 shear web attached to flow ducts or flow ducts that are integrated into mould parts. (App. Br. 4). Appellant’s arguments for patentability of the appealed subject matter lack persuasive merit. The Examiner’s conclusion that the cited prior art establishes it would have been obvious to utilize the known techniques for the formation of mold for turbine blades comprising a plurality of flow channels and incorporating the flow ducts into the mould parts as required by the claimed invention is supported by the evidence of record. The Examiner has established that the mold structures for blades comprising a plurality of flow channels were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (the predictable use of known prior art elements performing the same functions they have been known to perform is normally obvious; the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results). Appellant has not disputed that Burchardt discloses the inclusion of flow ducts within the mould allows for forming fibre reinforced laminated structures without leaving flow channels in the finished structure. Appellant has not disputed that Liebmann discloses the importance of locating a plurality of flow channels along the mold structure to prevent dry spots. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the importance of incorporating flow channels in the mold near the point of connection for the shear web so as to prevent dry spots from occurring within the web and producing a structure without flow channels in the finished product. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient skill to determine the appropriate location of the flow channels along the mold structure. 5 Appeal 2015-003928 Application 12/968,544 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19, 25, and 26 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 19, 25, and 26 are 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation