Vestas Wind Systems A/S

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2021

2020003693 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2021)

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.
15/570,491 10/30/2017 Steve Wardropper VWS-854US 6058
83583 7590 04/23/2021
Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Vestas Wind Systems)
441 Vine Street
2700 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202
EXAMINER
DANIELS, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2021 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):
mhines@whe-law.com
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE WARDROPPER, JONATHAN SMITH,
ANDREW HEDGES, and STEPHEN RANDALL
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
Technology Center 1700
BeforeJEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
2
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 13–22. See Appeal Br.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to a method for making a
reinforcing structure for a wind turbine blade. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is the only independent claim on appeal and is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 18):
1. A method of making an elongate reinforcing structure for
a wind turbine blade, the reinforcing structure comprising a
longitudinally-extending web and a longitudinally-extending
flange, the flange extending along a longitudinal edge of the web
and being arranged transversely to the web, and the method
comprising:
providing a longitudinally-extending mould tool having a
mould surface bound by a first longitudinal edge of the mould
tool, the mould surface being shaped to define the web of the
reinforcing structure;

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed October 30, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed August 7, 2019
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed January 10, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 24, 2020 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief
filed April 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Vestas Wind
Systems A/S. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
3
providing a pultruded flange structure comprising a flange
portion and a projecting portion that extends along the length of
the flange portion and projects transversely from a surface of the
flange portion;
supporting one or more first laminate layers of the web on
the mould surface;
positioning the flange structure adjacent to the first
longitudinal edge of the mould tool such that the projecting
portion of the flange structure overlies a first longitudinal edge
region of the one or more laminate layers and such that the flange
portion is transverse to the mould surface;
after positioning the flange structure, arranging one or
more second laminate layers on top of the one or more first
laminate layers such that the one or more second laminate layers
at least partially cover the projecting portion of the flange
structure; and
integrating the one or more first laminate layers, the one
or more second laminate layers and the projecting portion of the
flange structure in the mould by means of a matrix material and
thereby bonding the projecting portion between the one or more
first laminate layers and the one or more second laminate layers.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Loyd US 4,113,910 Sept. 12, 1978
Halcomb US 4,734,146 Mar. 29, 1988
George US 6,562,436 B2 May 13, 2003
Depase US 2009/0123708 A1 May 14, 2009
Walczyk US 2010/0181018 A1 July 22, 2010
Casazza US 2013/0334735 A1 Dec. 19, 2013
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 13, 16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Loyd and Depase.
Final Act. 2–4.
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
4
2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Loyd, Depase, and further in view of
Walczyk. Final Act. 4–5.
3. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Loyd, Depase, and further in view of
Halcomb (US 4,734,146). Final Act. 5–6.
4. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Loyd, Depase, and further in view of
Casazza. Final Act. 6.
5. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Loyd, Depase, and further in view of George.
Final Act. 6–7.
OPINION
Rejection 1
We confine our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient for
disposition of this rejection.
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Loyd and Depase, the
Examiner found Loyd discloses a method of making an elongate structure
that could be used in wind turbine blades. Final Act. 2 (citing Loyd, Figs. 1,
2, 5, 6). The Examiner found Loyd discloses a flange structure which is
positioned between a first laminate layer and a second laminate layer, such
that a projection of the flange structure is covered by the laminate layers. Id.
The Examiner found Loyd discloses integrating the two laminate layers and
the projecting portion of the flange structure by co-curing the parts using the
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
5
matrix resin contained in the parts. Id. (citing Loyd, col. 5, ll. 50–54; col. 3,
ll. 60–68).
The Examiner determined any order of performing these steps,
including positioning of the flange and subsequently arranging the second
laminate layer, would have been prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of
steps already disclosed by the prior art. Id. at 2–3.
The Examiner found Loyd to be silent as to the mold surface and
supporting the layers on the mold surface. Id. at 3. The Examiner found
Depase discloses a mold surface and supporting and arranging first and
second laminate layers on the mold surface. Id. (citing Depase Figs. 4, 7G).
The Examiner found Depase positions a filler, which is equivalent to Loyd’s
flange structure adjacent to a first longitudinal edge of the mold. Id. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to have incorporated
Depase’s mold into Loyd’s process because Loyd discloses laying up a
composite structural joint without discussing how the pieces are joined or
bonded and Depase provides a mold and process suitable for joining and
bonding composite structural joints in a configuration similar to Loyd. Id.
In this regard, the Examiner determined that, in such a combination, Loyd’s
flange structure would obviously be placed adjacent to the longitudinal edge
of the mold such that the projecting portion overlies a first longitudinal edge
region and the flange would be transverse to the mold surface. Id.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that claim 1 is a method claim and Loyd does not
disclose a method for making its entire composite structure. Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant contends the Examiner incorrectly relies on Loyd’s structure to
support the position that Loyd discloses the method of claim 1. Id. at 9–11.
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
6
Appellant argues Depase fails to make up for the deficiencies of Loyd, in
particular because Depase’s filler is not a flange structure as recited in claim
1 and the filler is installed after the second prepreg composite charge, which
is different from the sequence in claim 1. Id. at 13–14.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in determining that the method of making an
elongate reinforcing structure recited in claim 1 would have been obvious
over Loyd and Depase?
Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Loyd discloses a reinforced composite structure including a “load
coupler” (10) positioned between two opposed sheets (44 and 46). Loyd,
col. 5, ll. 18–42, Fig. 2. Loyd discloses that each of the individual
composite parts may be cured either before or after layup. Id. at col. 5, ll.
43–55. Loyd is silent as to any particular method of making the composite
structure using a mold tool as recited in claim 1. Depase discloses a method
for fabricating a composite structure, where first and second tools are used to
produce channels and flanges with certain shapes, and where the resulting
layup may be cured in the tools. Depase ¶¶ 5–11; Figs 1–8.
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how or why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Loyd and Depase to arrive at
the method recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner’s position that
Loyd’s flange structure could be placed on Depase’s mold such that the
flange structure would be placed adjacent to longitudinal edge of the mold in
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
7
a similar manner to Depase’s positioning filler (44) (see Depase Fig. 7G),
does not adequately account for all the steps recited in claim 1.
Although we agree with the Examiner that the method steps in claim 1
are recited in a broad manner (Ans. 4), the Examiner does not provide
sufficient rational underpinning to support the position that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have selected certain tools from the tool assembly in
Depase used for shaping and bending of composites to construct the
reinforced composite structure of Loyd according to the method in claim 1.
Thus, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is not sufficiently supported.
“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” 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)).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Loyd and Depase.
Rejections 2–5
The claims subjected to these rejections depend from claim 1. The
additional prior art cited does not remedy the deficiencies of Loyd and
Depase discussed with respect to claim 1. Thus, we reverse Rejections 2–5
for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to Rejection 1.
Appeal 2020-003693
Application 15/570,491
8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–9,
13, 16,
18–20
103 Loyd, Depase
1, 2, 4–9,
13, 16, 18–
20
10 103 Loyd, Depase, Walczyk 10
14, 15 103 Loyd, Depase, Halcomb 14, 15
17 103 Loyd, Depase, Casazza 17
21, 22 103 Loyd, Depase, George 21, 22
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–10,
13–22

REVERSED