Ex Parte Egedal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 1, 2017

13248073 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2017)

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. 13/248,073 09/29/2011 Per Egedal 2010P14900US 3197 22116 7590 08/03/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VIET P Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2017 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 PER EGEDAL and RUNE RUBAK Appeal 2016-007209 Application 13/248,0731 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, AVELYN M. ROSS, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16, 18—31, and 34. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-007209 Application 13/248,073 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellants describe the invention as relating to adjusting a power parameter of a wind turbine based upon wind turbulence or wind speed. Spec. 1:8—14. Claims 16 and 31 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 16, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A method for adjusting an electrical power parameter of a wind turbine, the method comprising: determining a load parameter indicative of a mechanical load of the wind turbine; estimating a turbulence of a wind speed based on the determined load parameter; updating a power lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine depending on the rotor speed, the power lookup table is updated by using the estimated turbulence; adjusting the electrical power parameter based on the load parameter, the estimated turbulence and a minimal power supplied from the power lookup table. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App’x). Claim 31 recites “[a] system for adjusting an electrical power parameter of a wind turbine” and recites “a power lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine via a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence.” Id. at 16. 2 In this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action dated April 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated May 17, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 18, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appeal 2016-007209 Application 13/248,073 REJECTION AND REFERENCES The Examiner rejects claims 16, 18—31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holley, US 5,289,041, issued Feb. 22, 1994 (hereinafter “Holley”) in view of Yoshida et al., US 2009/0241659 Al, published Oct. 1, 2009, and Feddersen et al., US 2003/0151259 Al, published Aug. 14, 2003. Ans. 2; Final Act. 2—8. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Holley teaches claim 16’s recited “power lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine depending on the rotor speed” and claim 31 ’s recited “power lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine via a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence.” Final Act. 3, 7. Appellants argue that Holley does not teach this recitation. Appeal Br. 9—11. We begin our analysis with claim construction. The Specification depicts use of a power lookup table at Figure 1, reproduced below. 3 Appeal 2016-007209 Application 13/248,073 Figure 1 schematically illustrates a system for adjusting a power parameter (i.e., any parameter that is dependent on or affects power of the wind turbine, such as a power output, rotor speed, and/or blade pitch angle of a blade) of a wind turbine according to an embodiment of Appellants’ invention. Spec. 9:1—2; see also id. 2:16—30 (defining power parameter). The power lookup table in Figure 1 is illustrated as Optimum Power Table 109. As illustrated in Figure 1, inputs to the power lookup table 109 are rotor speed and turbulence (or, more precisely, an estimate of turbulence). The output from the optimal power table is a “minimum power.” See Spec. 10:5-20. Based on the language of claim 16, Appellants’ Figures, and the Specification, the recited “power lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine depending on the rotor speed” outputs a power value. In other words, power is what may be looked up in the “lookup” table. The power value outputted depends (at least in part) on rotor speed. Similarly, claim 31 ’s recited “power lookup table defining a power of the wind turbine via a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence” outputs a power value of the wind turbine, and the power value outputted is defined by “a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence.” See also Ans. 3 (explaining that power supplied from the table is based on current rotor/wind speed condition). In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Holley teaches the power lookup table in Figures 2, 5A, and 5B. Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner equates Holley Figure 2’s parameter schedule 42 as being the recited lookup table. Parameter schedule 42, however, accepts a predicted wind speed as its input and provides desired rotor speed, desired torque, and 4 Appeal 2016-007209 Application 13/248,073 desired pitch angle as outputs. Holley Fig. 2; see also id. 4:27—31 (“the schedule includes a series of values for desired torque, rotor speed and pitch angel (if pitch is variable), all as a function of wind speed.”). Meanwhile, Figures 5 A and 5B illustrate curves for desired rotor speed and desired torque versus windspeed. The Examiner has not adequately explained how Figures 2, 5A, or 5B can be understood to teach the power lookup table recitations of claims 16 or 31 as explained above. Appeal Br. 9-11. In particular, the Examiner has not adequately explained how parameter schedule 42 depends on rotor speed, is defined by a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence, or outputs a power. In the Answer, the Examiner cites column 3 of Holley as disclosing a power lookup table that defines power as a relationship of rotor speed. Ans. 3. The cited portions of Holley, however, indicate that rotor speed is selected based on a predicted “power parameter” and that “the power parameter is wind speed.” Holley 3:11—24; see also Reply Br. 6. In other words, this portion of Holley is best understood as referring to Holley’s wind speed observer 40 because it is discussing predicting wind speed which is “indicative of the amount of power available from the power source.” We do not understand this portion of Holley as teaching a table that outputs a power that depends on rotor speed or is defined by a relationship between the rotor speed and an estimated turbulence. The Examiner also cites column seven of Holley as disclosing a mathematical relationship between rotor speed and power. Ans. 3. Column seven further discusses the wind observer of Holley which outputs a predicted wind and rotor speed. Holley 7:14—18. Like the portions of 5 Appeal 2016-007209 Application 13/248,073 Holley discussed above, the Examiner does not persuasively explain how this portion of Holley teaches the lookup table recitations discussed above. Because Appellants have established that the Examiner has not adequately explained how Holley (or any other cited reference) teaches the power lookup table as recited in claims 16 and 31, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 18-31, and 34. REVERSED 6