Ex Parte StiesdalDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201612904338 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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. 12/904,338 10/14/2010 Henrik Stiesdal 2009P19004US 5729 22116 7590 12/20/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER ANDREWS, MICHAEL Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2016 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 HENRIK STIESDAL Appeal 2015-004201 Application 12/904,338 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicant (hereinafter the “Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 17, 20, 24—28, 30-34, 36, and 37.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The Appellant states that the real party in interest is “Siemens Aktiengesellschaft” (Appeal Brief filed October 23, 2014, hereinafter “Appeal Br.” 3). 2 Appeal Br. 1; Non-Final Office Action mailed April 24, 2014, hereinafter “Non-Final Act.,” 5—15; Examiner’s Answer delivered electronically on December 18, 2014, hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—6. Appeal 2015-004201 Application 12/904,338 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a so-called “arrangement” (i.e., an apparatus or a combination of various devices) that makes up certain key components of a wind turbine electrical generator provided with a cooling system (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 12). Claim 17, the only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced from page 9 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), with key disputed limitations highlighted in italicized text, as follows: 17. A wind turbine electrical generator cooling arrangement, comprising: a rotor; a stator including a plurality of stator segments, each stator segment including a plurality of stacked-laminate plates, the plurality of stacked-laminate plates contain a plurality of slots at a first side of the plurality of stacked-laminate plates, the first side of the plurality of stacked-laminate plates is aligned to the rotor and the plurality of slots support a metal winding of a stator coil; a plurality of hollow-cooling pipes, each of the plurality of hollow-cooling pipes is dedicated to one of the plurality of stator segments and each of the plurality of hollow-cooling pipes is partly integrated into the plurality of stacked-laminate plates of the dedicated stator segment in order to cool the plurality of stacked-laminate plates by a cooling-medium, which is located in each hollow-cooling pipe; and a plurality of heat exchangers, each of the plurality of heat exchangers is connected with only one of the plurality of hollow-cooling pipes of the dedicated stator segment by a respective input-connection and an output connection; wherein each partly integrated cooling pipe is disposed such that a thermal exchange between the dedicated stator segment and the cooling pipe is allowed, wherein each partly integrated hollow-cooling pipe is located on a second side of the plurality of stacked-laminate plates, 2 Appeal 2015-004201 Application 12/904,338 wherein the second side is opposite to the first side, and wherein each partly integrated cooling pipe is exposed from the plurality of stacked-laminate plates along the second side in a longitudinal direction, wherein each partly integrated cooling pipe is partly integrated into the plurality of stacked- laminate plates along a longitudinal direction. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 17, 20, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lagerwey,3 Emoto,4 and Houle et al.5 (Non-Final Act. 5—10). The Examiner also rejected claims 24, 27, 28, and 32—34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on multiple grounds as unpatentable over the aforementioned prior art references further in view of certain additional references {id. at 10-15). DISCUSSION A dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner articulated a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to support a conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Lagerwey’s wind turbine generator by replacing the generator’s single cooling unit (heat exchanger) with a plurality of cooling devices, as shown in Emoto’s driving system for accurately transferring a reticle pattern to a wafer, each cooling device being dedicated to only one cooling pipe.6 For the reasons given by the Appellant (Appeal Br. 6; Reply Brief filed February 18, 2015 at 2—3) and below, we hold that the Examiner failed to 3 US 2005/0082836 Al, published April 21, 2005. 4 US 6,226,073 Bl, issued May 1, 2001. 5 US 2004/0012272 Al, published January 22, 2004. 6 See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). 3 Appeal 2015-004201 Application 12/904,338 articulate a sufficient reason for supporting a conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner claimed by the Appellant. As found by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 6), Lagerwey discloses a wind turbine generator in which a single heat exchanger 49 is connected to three cooling lines 28 via liquid feed line 24 and manifold 25 for controlling the temperature of stator 9 (Fig. 6; 139). According to Fagerwey {id. 127), “[considerable amounts of heat are developed in the stator 9 of the generator, which heat has to be dissipated immediately.” Fagerwey teaches that the cooling system includes an air channel 56 that is “more or less [a] closed channel, so that cooling air, which may be salty and moist, does not enter the machine housing 4” {id.). Fagerwey further teaches (id. ) (emphasis added): If appropriate, heat can be fed to the circulating cooling liquid during or after a prolonged standstill period, for example, as a result of the absence of wind, in order to keep warm or heat the windings of the stator 9, so that condensation is not formed or disappears. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Fagerwey’s single heat exchanger system is designed to effect immediate cooling according to particular requirements unique to conditions in a wind turbine generator system. By contrast, Emoto discloses the use of multiple cooling means 106a— c for a driving system mounted on a positioning system for transferring a reticle pattern to a wafer (col. 1,11. 7—12; Fig. 8). According to Emoto, cooling means 106a—c circulates media 103a—c to collect heat generated by a driving means 101a (col. 1,11. 47—50). Emoto teaches that by adjusting the temperature or flow rate of the cooling medium used in these cooling means, 4 Appeal 2015-004201 Application 12/904,338 “the driving system as a whole can be kept uniformly at a predetermined temperature” {id., 11. 53—55). Because the disclosed structure and function of Emoto’s apparatus differ significantly from those disclosed for Lagerwey’s wind turbine generator cooling system, the combination of these references to arrive at the claimed invention would—in our view—“involve more than the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Therefore, we conclude that the teachings in these references are not sufficiently interrelated to support a determination that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner claimed by the Appellant. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17, 20, 24—28, 30-34, 36, and 37 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation