Ex Parte Spruce

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

14129400 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/129,400 02/10/2014
83583 7590 10/02/2018
Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Vestas Wind Systems)
441 Vine Street
2700 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Chris Spruce
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
VWS-631US 1073
EXAMINER
KOEHLER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS SPRUCE
Appeal 2018-002690
Application 14/129,400
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chris Spruce (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) claims 1, 6-9, 11,
12, and 14--16 as anticipated by GE Wind Energy (hereinafter "GE") (WO
2010/100271 A2, published Sept. 10, 2010); 1 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) claims 2--4 and 17 as unpatentable over GE; and (2) claim 5 as
1 Appellant correctly notes that the heading of the rejection does not include
claims 15 and 16 but that both claims are addressed in the body of the
rejection. See Appeal Brief 6, n. 1 (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed Aug. 21,
2017); see also Final Office Action 2--4 (hereinafter "Final Act.) (dated Mar.
1, 2017).
Appeal2018-002690
Application 14/129,400
unpatentable over GE and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter
"AAP A"). 2 Claims 10 and 13 have been canceled. 3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates to a wind turbine, and in particular
a method of yawing a rotor of a wind turbine." Spec. 1 :5---6, Figs. 5, 6A, 6B.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A method of yawing a rotor of a wind turbine, the method
compnsmg:
increasing a yaw speed of the rotor of the wind turbine, in
a direction to reduce a yaw error, from a first speed to a faster
second speed when at least one of a yaw error threshold and a
rate of change in yaw error threshold is exceeded, the yaw error
being an amount an axis about which the rotor is rotatable is
offset from a wind direction to which the rotor is exposed.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by GE
Claims 1, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14-16
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of yawing a rotor of a
wind turbine including the step of "increasing a yaw speed of the rotor of the
wind turbine ... from a first speed to a faster second speed" when a "yaw
2 The Examiner cites the "Background" section of the subject application as
constituting AAP A. See Final Act. 5.
3 Claims 10 and 13 have been cancelled in an Amendment filed Nov. 9, 2016.
See Appeal Br. 6, n. 1.
2
Appeal2018-002690
Application 14/129,400
error threshold is exceeded." Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. The Examiner
finds that "GE teaches a method of yawing a rotor ( 4) of a wind turbine ( 1 )"
including the step of "increasing a yaw speed of the rotor of the wind turbine
... from a first speed to a faster second speed (Va to Vb[)]" when a yaw
error threshold is exceeded. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing GE 1:7-12, 6:11-21;
7 :23-30, and 9:26-10:25); see also id. at 6; GE, Fig. 4.
Appellant contends that "GE fails to teach increasing the yaw speed of
a rotor of a wind turbine 'from a first speed to a faster second speed when at
least one of a yaw error threshold and a rate of change in yaw error threshold
is exceeded."' Appeal Br. 10. In particular, Appellant contends that the
wind turbine yaw control system of GE "continuously alters the [yaw speed]
... without regard to whether the [yaw] error has exceeded any thresholds;"
whereas, the wind turbine yaw control system of the subject invention
utilizes the "step-change in the speed ... in response to the ... yaw error
exceeding a threshold." See id. at 8-9.
The Examiner cites to page 7 lines 23 to 30 of GE to support the
finding of "a first speed" (Va) and "a second faster speed" (Vb). See Final
Act. 2, 6. That portion of GE discloses Va as "corresponding to an angular
yaw velocity of the nacelle 3 shown in the first quadrant, Q 1, of the diagram
ofFig[ure] 4" and Vb as a different "angular velocity" of nacelle 3, which is
also shown in the first quadrant, Q 1, of the diagram of Figure 4. See GE,
7:23-27, Fig. 4.
GE also discloses that:
In extreme wind speeds above a predetermined level or
under other extraordinary conditions, the motor operation in QI
and Q3 is stopped by the control system 8. The desired speed of
the nacelle yaw rotation is zero, and under these conditions,
3
Appeal2018-002690
Application 14/129,400
operation in Q2 and Q4 is allowed only. The result of this mode
of operation is that the nacelle 3 will find a yaw position where
external yaw torque finds a minimum.
GE, 9: 18-22 ( emphases added), Fig. 4.
Stated differently, at wind speeds exceeding a threshold, the motor
operation in QI, the quadrant containing Va and Vb, is stopped by control
system 8 and the yaw torque is at a minimum. Based on this disclosure, GE
fails to disclose "increasing a yaw speed of the rotor of the wind turbine ...
from a first speed to a faster second speed" when a "yaw error threshold is
exceeded." See id.; see also Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. (emphases added). 4
Each of independent claims 9, 11, 12, and 14 includes limitations
similar to those discussed above for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13, 14, and 15
Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings in GE
for claims 9, 11, 12, and 14. See Final Act. 2-3. As such, the Examiner's
findings with respect to GE are deficient for claims 9, 11, 12, and 14 as well.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
6-9, 11, 12, and 14--16 as anticipated by GE.
Obviousness over GE or over GE and AAP A
Claims 2-5 and 17
Claims 2-5 and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 12, 15 Claims App. The Examiner does not rely on proposed
modifications to GE or AAP A to remedy the deficiencies of GE discussed
4 Appellant presents an "inherency" argument regarding the Examiner's
findings in the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 8-10. However, the Examiner
does not appear to present an inherency rejection of the claims in view of the
GE reference. See Final Act. 2-3, 6.
4
Appeal2018-002690
Application 14/129,400
above. See Final Act. 4---6. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those
discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 2-5 and 17.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 6-9,
11, 12, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 2-5 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5