Ex Parte SkaareDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613265909 (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. 13/265,909 01/13/2012 Bjorn Skaare 19727-0046 9891 29052 7590 12/29/2016 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP 999 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E. Suite 2300 ATLANTA, GA 30309 EXAMINER GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 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): patent, docket @ sutherland.com pair_sutherland @ firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BJORN SKAARE Appeal 2015-007865 Application 13/265,909 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Oct. 24, 2011; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Mar. 7, 2014; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”); and Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant identifies Hywind AS as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-007865 Application 13/265,909 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a control system for floating wind turbines. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows: 1. A controller for a floating wind turbine, the controller being adapted to cause the wind turbine to extract energy from wave-induced motion of the turbine, the turbine having a rotor with a variable speed and a plurality of blades, wherein the controller controls the rotor speed of the turbine by controlling a torque of a load presented to the rotor such that the rotor speed varies in response to wave-induced motion. REJECTIONS3 I. Claims 1—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nielsen4 and Egedal.5 II. Claims 25—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nielsen, Egedal, and Erdman.6 DISCUSSION As is germane to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner found that Nielsen discloses a floating wind turbine and that Egedal discloses a controller that “controls the rotor speed of the turbine by controlling the torque of the load presented to the rotor.” Final Act. 3. In support of the latter finding, the Examiner interpreted the term “load” in 3 Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 2. 4 US 7,456,515 B2, issued Nov. 25, 2008 (“Nielsen”). 5 US 2009/0250932 Al, published Oct. 8, 2009 (“Egedal”). 6 US 2009/0008938 Al, published Jan. 8, 2009 (“Erdman”). 2 Appeal 2015-007865 Application 13/265,909 Appellant’s claims as encompassing the wind energy which drives the turbine blades and, consequently, rotates a generator rotor. Id. at 7. Under that interpretation, the Examiner found that Egedal’s blade pitch controller will “affect the load presented to the rotor.” Id. Stated differently, the Examiner found that “Egedal teaches use of pitch control. . . which changes the ‘torque of the [wind] load presented to the rotor”'' Ans. 4. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “load” as it appears in the claims. According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill would understand that term to mean the “thing upon which work is done by a machine.” Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellant contends, “controlling a torque of a load presented to the rotor” as claimed involves “adjusting the amount of resistance to the rotation of the rotor.” App. Br. 4. Appellant urges that neither Nielsen nor Egedal teaches controlling the resistance to rotation of the rotor. Id. With particular regard to the Examiner’s reliance on Egedal, Appellant contends that “[ajdjusting a blade pitch would not change a torque of a load presented to the rotor but rather would change the torque produced by the rotor.” Id. at 6. During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, “the proper BRI construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. ” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A construction that is unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure will not pass muster.”). 3 Appeal 2015-007865 Application 13/265,909 Appellant’s Specification consistently describes the load present to the rotor as the thing upon which the turbine does work, e.g., an electrical generator. See Spec. p. 2,11. 4—5 (“adjusting the torque of the generator load experienced by the rotor”); p. 6,11. 25—26 (“the wind turbine being arranged to drive a load which presents a torque thereto”); p. 7,11. 1—2 (“[t]he load may, most commonly, be an electrical generator”); p. 9,11. 32—33 (“[t]he controller also acts to vary the torque which the generator provides as a load to the turbine rotor”). The Examiner’s different interpretation of the disputed term is neither consistent with the foregoing teachings in the Specification nor supported by any technical reasoning or evidence identified in the Final Action or the Answer. On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “load” as claimed was incorrect. As such, the Examiner’s finding premised on that faulty interpretation—that Egedal teaches controlling the torque of the load presented to the rotor—is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain Rejection I. Because the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25—27 is premised on the same faulty claim interpretation, we also do not sustain Rejection II. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation