11974886 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2012)

Ex Parte Thisted

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 28, 2012

11974886 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2012)

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. 11/974,886 10/16/2007 Jan Thisted 2006P03743US 7164 22116 7590 08/28/2012 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER WAKS, JOSEPH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/28/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte JAN THISTED ________________ Appeal 2010-005758 Application 11/974,886 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005758 Application 11/974,886 2 SUMMARY Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11-19 which stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Owman et al. (WO 01/69754 A1, September 20, 2001) (“Owman”) and Leijon et al. (US 7,259,491 B2, August 21, 2007) (“Leijon”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant submits that the Examiner erred for substantially the same reasons with respect to claims 11-19. We therefore choose independent claim 11 as representative of these claims. Claim 11 recites: 11. A wind farm comprising: a wind turbine having a rotor mechanically coupled with a wind turbine generator for transforming mechanical power into electrical power, the generator comprising a generator output for putting out the electrical power; a wind farm output node adapted to electrically couple the wind farm with a utility grid; a converter having an electric motor with a stator and a rotor and a converter generator with a stator and a rotor, the stator of the motor is electrically coupled with the generator output and the stator of the converter generator is electrically coupled with the wind farm output node, and the rotor of the motor and the rotor of the converter generator are mechanically coupled to each other; and Appeal 2010-005758 Application 11/974,886 3 a control device connected to the electric motor and/or the converter generator and configured to produce control signals based on a request set value relating to the electrical power to be output from the wind farm output node, and to output the control signals to the electric motor and/or the converter generator. App. Br. 6. ISSUE Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Owman and Leijon. App. Br. 3. Specifically, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Leijon discloses or suggests a control device connected to the first and second electromotive machines of rotating converter 30. App. Br. 4. The issue before us, then, is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Leijon discloses or suggests claim 11’s limitation reciting a control device connected to the electric motor and/or the converter generator and configured to produce control signals based on a request set value relating to the electrical power to be output from the wind farm output node, and to output the control signals to the electric motor and/or the converter generator. ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the rotating converter 30 of Leijon includes an auxiliary device 38 (i.e., a starter motor) for starting the first and second electromotive machines. App. Br. 4 (citing Leijon col. 4, ll. 31-34). Appellant maintains that the control system 104 disclosed by Leijon for controlling the rotor speed of starter motor 38 is presented solely in the Appeal 2010-005758 Application 11/974,886 4 context of a starter motor for the rotating converter 30. App. Br. 4 (citing Leijon col. 4, ll. 61-64; see also Leijon, FIG. 4). The Examiner answers that Leijon teaches that the auxiliary device 38 has the additional function of controlling the converter by creating an air gap between the first stator and rotor and the second stator and rotor, thus creating an electrical current in the winding connecting the two rotors and thereby allowing power transfer between the networks 101 and 102. Ans. 6. Furthermore, Examiner finds that the auxiliary device 38 is mechanically connected to the rotor device 36 and that the device 38 decreases or increases the rotor speed accordingly to the signal sent from the controller 104. Ans. 7 (citing Leijon col. 4, ll. 44-60). We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive. We agree with Appellant that Leijon discloses an auxiliary unit 38 that functions as a startup motor for starting up of the rotors to a suitable rotation speed before connection of the converter 30 to the AC networks. See Leijon, col. 4, ll. 31-34. However, Leijon also discloses or suggests that the auxiliary unit 38 is controlled by a control system 104 via a variable speed drive 203, which controls the speed of rotation of the converter 30 (and therefore controls the power transfer between the networks). See Leijon, col. 4, ll. 60-65. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in determining that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art that Leijon discloses or suggests the limitation of claim 11 reciting a control device connected to the electric motor and/or the converter generator and configured to produce control signals based on a request set value relating to the electrical power to be output from the wind Appeal 2010-005758 Application 11/974,886 5 farm output node, and to output the control signals to the electric motor and/or the converter generator. CONCLUSION Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Owman and Leijon. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-19 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Owman and Leijon is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED ke