Ex Parte Schindele et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201713392877 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) 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. 13/392,877 04/26/2012 Lothar Schindele 2387-0018 3136 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER MIA, MD N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2017 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 LOTHAR SCHINDELE, BORIS BUCHTALA, BERND SCHNURR, and ANDREAS VATH Appeal 2017-006432 Application 13/392,877 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-006432 Application 13/392,877 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 7—11, and 13—15, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a “management system for a wind energy installation” that is “used for coordination of component modules in the wind energy installation” (Spec 1:6—10). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A management system for a wind energy installation comprising: a plurality of subsystems, each of the subsystems including a plurality of component modules and having at least one oscillation damping module associated therewith, wherein the plurality of subsystems include a rotor subsystem, a drive train subsystem, and a generator subsystem, an actuator system configured to actuate the oscillation damping modules to perform a damping function for the associated subsystem; a sensor system configured to detect at least one of oscillations, loads, and disturbances in the wind energy installation; a central controller that is coupled to the sensor system and the actuator system and is configured to determine damping measures and load reduction measures for the wind energy 2 Appeal 2017-006432 Application 13/392,877 installation based at least in part on the output of the sensor system, wherein the central controller is configured to selectively activate the oscillation damping modules via the actuator system to implement the damping measures and load reduction measures, and wherein, when the oscillation damping module of one of the subsystems fails, the central controller is configured to actuate the oscillation damping modules of the remaining subsystems to distribute the damping measures and load reduction measures to the oscillation damping modules of the remaining subsystems. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Jeppesen US 2008/0118354 A1 May 22, 2008 Scholte-Wassink US 2009/0230681 A1 Sept. 17, 2009 Gamble US 2009/0317250 A1 Dec. 24, 2009 THE REJECTION1 The Examiner made the following rejection: 1 The Answer contains a new objection to claim 11. See Ans. 2. We decline to review the objection because it constitutes a petitionable rather than an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP, Ninth Edition, November 2015) § 1002.02(c). 3 Appeal 2017-006432 Application 13/392,877 Claims 1—4, 7—11, and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scholte-Wassink, in view of Gamble, and Jeppesen. Final Act. 3.2 ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Scholte-Wassink, Gamble, and Jeppesen teaches or suggests the limitations of: 1. “when the oscillation damping module of one of the subsystems fails, the central controller is configured to actuate the oscillation damping modules of the remaining subsystems to distribute the damping measures and load reduction measures to the oscillation damping modules of the remaining subsystems,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11; and 2. “diagnosing damage to a subsystem by changes in the oscillation behavior of the subsystem, and deducing a remaining life of the wind energy installation with the aid of statistical methods based on the measurement results from the sensor system,” as recited in claim 13. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer, the Advisory Action, and Final Action except for the findings with respect to claim 13. We add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally 2 While the heading of the Final Rejection incorrectly indicates claim 12 is rejected, claim 12 was canceled in an Amendment filed on Aug. 26, 2015. 4 Appeal 2017-006432 Application 13/392,877 review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred because “claim 1 requires that the damping measures and load reduction measures are redistributed to other oscillating damping modules” whereas “Jeppesen merely teaches redundant controllers for the same subsystem” (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend that “[a]t best, Jeppesen provides damping and load reduction measures for the blade that has the failed controller, but that is not one of the ‘remaining subsystems’ as required by claim 1” (Reply Br. 4). We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Jeppesen teaches distributing the control task (i.e. damping measure and load reduction measures) to the controllers of other equipment/subsystem (Advisory Act. 2 citing para. 24). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that “‘take over the control from the failed controller’” (Ans. 18, quoting Jeppesen 124), corresponds to “taking over the control function (i.e. damping function of instant application) from [the] failed controller (i.e. failed oscillation damping module) by the other controllers in the distributed control system” (Ans. 18), and thus Jeppesen, when combined with Scholte-Wassink and Gamble, suggests the disputed limitation. Appellants’ arguments do not challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding Jeppesen’s teachings regarding the redistribution of functions when a component fails, but instead focus on particular configurations 5 Appeal 2017-006432 Application 13/392,877 disclosed in Jeppesen. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claim 11 for similar reasons (see App. Br. 13—14), and claims 2—4, 7—10, and 14—15 not argued separately. See App. Br. 14. Claim 13 Appellants argue the Examiner erred because “Gamble does not teach or suggest ‘deducing a remaining life of the wind energy installation with the aid of statistical methods based on the measurement results’” (App. Br. 14). Appellants contend Gamble “only teaches using mathematical methods and models for reducing loads and increasing operational life” (App. Br. 16). We agree. The Examiner’s finding that Gamble “discloses to increase operation life by using sophisticated mathematical and computer methods to reduce loads on the wind turbines and thus increase operational life” (Ans. 19, citing Gamble 119) does not indicate how such methods would deduce a remaining life of the wind energy installation, as increasing operational life appears independent of determining a remaining life. Thus, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. The Examiner: CONCLUSION 6 Appeal 2017-006432 Application 13/392,877 1. did not err in finding the combination of Scholte-Wassink, Gamble, and Jeppesen teaches or suggests the limitation of “when the oscillation damping module of one of the subsystems fails, the central controller is configured to actuate the oscillation damping modules of the remaining subsystems to distribute the damping measures and load reduction measures to the oscillation damping modules of the remaining subsystems,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11; and 2. erred in finding the combination of Scholte-Wassink, Gamble, and Jeppesen teaches or suggests the limitation of “diagnosing damage to a subsystem by changes in the oscillation behavior of the subsystem, and deducing a remaining life of the wind energy installation with the aid of statistical methods based on the measurement results from the sensor system,” as recited in claim 13. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 7—11, and 14—15 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 13 is reversed. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation