Ex Parte SpruceDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201814129400 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation