VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS A/S

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2021

2021000597 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
15/543,859 07/14/2017 Niels Erik DANIELSEN VEST/0458USP (090755) 8904
13923 7590 10/18/2021
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP / Vestas
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
ORTEGA, JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2832
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2021 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NIELS ERIK DANIELSEN
____________

Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON,
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–12 and 14–21.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
The Appellant identifies Vestas Wind Systems A/S as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed May 26, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), 3.
2 Final Office Action entered December 26, 2019 (“Final Act.”), 1.
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant claims a power management system for one or more
wind turbines (independent claim 1), a method of power management of one
or more wind turbines (independent claim 14), and a wind turbine system
(independent claim 15). Appeal Br. 7–9. Claim 15 illustrates the subject
matter on appeal, and reads as follows:
15. A wind turbine system comprising:
one or more wind turbines connected to a power supply
with a limited capacity, wherein the one or more wind turbines
comprise one or more power consuming units; and
a power management system comprising:
a dispatcher connected to the power supply and
configured to:
access an available capacity of the power
supply;
determine a base load for the power supply
that is applied to requests for power consumption
from the one or more power consuming units,
wherein the base load is less than the available
capacity; and
based on the available capacity, determine
whether to allow or deny the requests for power
consumption to be fulfilled by the power supply;
and
a requester connected to the one or more power
consuming units, the requester configured to:
receive a first request for power consumption from
a first power consuming unit of the one or more power
consuming units;
receive information from the dispatcher about the
base load;
compare the first request with the base load;
allow, without forwarding the first request to the
dispatcher, the first request to be fulfilled by the power
supply when the first request does not exceed the base
load; and
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
3
forward the first request to the dispatcher when the
first request exceeds the base load.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
Like claim 15, independent claim 1 recites a power management
system comprising a dispatcher configured to access an available capacity of
a power supply and determine a base load for the power supply that is
applied to requests for power consumption from one or more power
consuming units, and a requester connected to the one or more power
consuming units and configured to receive a first request for power
consumption from a first power consuming unit, receive information from
the dispatcher about the base load, and forward the first request to the
dispatcher when the first request exceeds the base load. Appeal Br. 18.
Claim 14, the remaining independent claim on appeal, recites subject
matter similar to claims 1 and 15, including determining, using information
received from a dispatcher connected to a power supply, a base load for the
power supply, up to which a first power consuming unit is allowed to
consume power from the power supply without forwarding a request to the
dispatcher. Appeal Br. 20–21.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered September 1, 2020 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1–9 and 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Matzen (US 2013/0175801 A1, published July 11, 2013); and
II. Claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Matzen in view of Nielsen (US 8,000,840 B2, published August 16, 2011).
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
4
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of the Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–9 and 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and rejection of claims
10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply
Briefs, and below.
Rejection I
We turn first to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 and 14–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Matzen. We need address
only independent claims 1, 14, and 15.
The Examiner finds that Matzen discloses a wind turbine system
comprising wind energy installations 10 (wind turbines) including one or
more electrical consumers 20 (power consuming units). Final Act. 8–9
(citing Matzen Figs. 1 and 2). The Examiner finds that Matzen discloses
that the wind turbine system further comprises a power management system
comprising farm master 50 (dispatcher) connected to mains substitute supply
unit 60 (power supply), and operating control units 30 (requesters)
connected to electrical consumers 20 (power consuming units). Id.
The Examiner finds that Matzen discloses that farm master 50
(dispatcher) is configured to determine base load 92 for mains substitute
supply unit 60 (power supply) that is applied to requests for power
consumption from the one or more power consuming units. Final Act. 8–9
(citing Matzen ¶ 59, Figs. 1 and 2). The Examiner finds that Matzen
discloses that base load 92 “indicates how much of the power generated by
the mains substitute supply unit 60 is actually available at the wind energy
installations 10 for operation of the electrical consumers 20.” Id.
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
5
On the record before us, however, for reasons expressed by the
Appellant and discussed below, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient
factual basis to establish that Matzen discloses determining a base load for a
power supply that is applied to requests for power consumption from one or
more power consuming units, as required by claims 1, 14, and 15.
Matzen discloses wind farm 1 comprising a plurality of wind energy
installations 10 that include electrical consumers 20 connected to grid 40,
from which electrical consumers 20 obtain energy necessary for their
operation. Matzen ¶¶ 46, 47; Figs. 1 and 2. Matzen discloses that operating
control units 30 control the operation of each wind energy installation 10,
and farm master 50 is connected to operating control units 30. Matzen
¶¶ 48, 50; Fig. 1. Matzen discloses that when there is a fault in grid 40,
mains substitute supply unit 60 is switched on and feeds electrical power
into grid 40 necessary for operation of electrical consumers 20. Matzen
¶ 53.
Matzen discloses prioritizing provision of power during a grid fault to
electrical consumers 20 whose operation is essential for the safety and
survival of wind energy installations 10. Matzen ¶¶ 19–22, 54–57, 71.
Matzen discloses that as part of this prioritization, farm master 50 calculates
maximum consumption value 90, which indicates the amount of electrical
power available for individual wind energy installations 10 during a grid
fault. Matzen ¶¶ 58, 59.
Matzen discloses that maximum consumption value 90 is calculated
by determining the difference between the maximum power that can be
generated by mains substitute supply unit 60 and base load 92, and dividing
this difference by the number of wind energy installations 10 in wind farm 1.
Matzen ¶ 32; Fig. 3a. Matzen discloses that “[t]he base load includes all
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
6
those factors that reduce the maximum power” generated by mains substitute
supply unit 60 to the amount that is actually available to wind energy
installations 10 (maximum consumption value 90). Matzen ¶ 32. More
specifically, Matzen explains that base load 92 represents power losses from
the maximum power generated by mains substitute supply unit 60, including
power lost during transport of power from mains substitute supply unit 60
over grid 40 due to cable resistances, and Matzen further indicates that “the
energy requirement of the farm master 50 itself also contributes to the base
load 92.” Matzen ¶¶ 32, 59.
The Appellant argues that Matzen does not disclose determining a
base load for a power supply that is applied to requests for power
consumption from one or more power consuming units, as required by
independent claims 1, 14, and 15. Appeal Br. 13–16. In response to this
argument, the Examiner finds that Matzen discloses that a value for base
load 92 is stored in farm master 50, and base load 92 indicates how much of
the power generated by mains substitute supply unit 60 is actually available
at wind energy installations 10 for operation of electrical consumers 20.
Ans. 4 (citing Matzen ¶ 59). The Examiner further determines that “base
load” is “not given a special definition in the instant specification,” and “in
the present invention’s technology is commonly understood as ‘the
minimum amount of electrical power needed to be supplied to the electrical
grid (internal grid in the present invention) at any given time.’” Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds that Matzen, therefore, “inherently discloses” determining a
base load for a power supply that is applied to requests for power
consumption from power consuming units. Id.
The Examiner, however, does not provide any indication of the source
of the Examiner’s definition of “base load,” much less cite a reference
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
7
establishing that the Examiner’s asserted definition is the accepted meaning
of the term in the relevant technological field. And as the Appellant points
out, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the instant Specification to describe the meaning of a
“base load” as the term is used in the context of the present independent
claims. Reply Br. 3–4. Specifically, the Specification indicates that a “base
load” is the maximum amount of power that a power consuming unit may
consume during a grid loss situation without the need for a requester to
forward a power request to a dispatcher. Spec. 6, ll. 23–26. The
Specification explains that if a power consuming unit needs an amount of
power that exceeds the base load, the requester must send a request for
power to the dispatcher. Spec. 6, ll. 26–28.
The Examiner’s interpretation of “base load” as “the minimum
amount of electrical power needed to be supplied to the electrical grid
(internal grid in the present invention) at any given time” is thus inconsistent
with how the term “base load” is used in the present Specification, and,
therefore, does not represent a broadest reasonable interpretation of “base
load” that is consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that the correct inquiry in giving a claim
term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the
claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation
that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is “consistent with the specification.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And even if the Examiner’s
definition of “base load” corresponds to the ordinary and customary
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
8
meaning of this term in the relevant art, the Appellant nonetheless is entitled
to accord a meaning to “base load” that differs from such meaning. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Moreover, as discussed above, Matzen’s use of the term “base load”
differs from how the present Specification uses the term. Matzen discloses
that the “base load” represents power losses that reduce the maximum power
generated by the mains substitute supply unit 60 to the amount that is
actually available to wind energy installations 10 during a grid fault (the
“maximum consumption value”). Matzen ¶¶ 32, 59; Fig. 3a. Although, as
the Examiner finds, Matzen indicates that “[t]he base load 92 indicates how
much of the power generated by the mains substitute supply unit 60 is
actually available at the wind energy installations 10 for operation of the
electrical consumers 20” (Ans. 4 (citing Matzen ¶ 59)), this description of
“base load” is inconsistent with how Matzen describes “base load” in the
remainder of the document, discussed above. Matzen ¶¶ 32, 59; Fig. 3a. In
fact, the isolated description of “base load” cited by the Examiner actually
corresponds to how Matzen describes the “maximum consumption value,”
and, therefore, appears to be erroneous. Compare Matzen ¶ 59, with Matzen
¶¶ 32, 59; Fig. 3a. More specifically, Matzen discloses that “[t]he maximum
consumption value 90 indicates how much electrical power is available for
the individual wind energy installations 10 during a grid fault” (Matzen
¶ 58), while Matzen’s further disclosures repeatedly indicate that the base
load represents losses that diminish the maximum power available to wind
energy installations (maximum consumption value) relative to the maximum
power generated by the mains substitute supply unit. Matzen ¶¶ 32, 59; Fig.
3a.
Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
9
Thus, although the Examiner finds that Matzen inherently discloses
determining a base load for a power supply that is applied to requests for
power consumption from power consuming units, the Examiner’s finding is
based on an interpretation of “base load” that is inconsistent with how this
term is used in the Appellants’ Specification. And the Specification’s use of
“base load” does not correspond to Matzen’s description of a “base load.”
The Examiner, consequently, does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
establish that Matzen inherently or explicitly discloses determining a “base
load” that is applied to requests for power consumption from power
consuming units, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
“base load” that is consistent with the Appellant’s Specification.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 14, and 15, and claims 2–9 and 16–21, which each
depend from either claim 1, 14, or 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Matzen.
Rejection II
We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Matzen in view of Nielsen. Because the
Examiner does not rely on Nielsen for any disclosure that remedies the
deficiencies of the Examiner’s reliance on Matzen (discussed above), we do
not sustain this rejection. Final Act. 12–13.

Appeal 2021-000597
Application 15/543,859
10
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 14–21 102(a)(1) Matzen 1–9, 14–21
10–12 103 Matzen,
Nielsen
10–12
Overall
Outcome
1–12, 14–21

REVERSED