Ex Parte EriksenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201713520396 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017) 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. 13/520,396 07/03/2012 Uffe Eriksen 2010P00270WOUS 4742 22116 7590 05/22/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER REID JR, CHARLES H Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2017 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 UFFE ERIKSEN Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 16—30. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §6. Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a direct drive wind turbine comprising a generator, a bearing assembly, and a cooling system including a heat sink and a heat dissipater. Also, Appellant’s claim a bearing assembly and a method of controlling the temperature of a bearing assembly. Claims 16 and 25 are illustrative and reproduced below: 16. A direct drive wind turbine comprising: a generator with a rotor and a stator, Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 a bearing with an inner ring and an outer ring connecting the rotor and the stator rotatively, a cooling system comprising: a heat sink being in thermal communication with the inner ring of the bearing, and a heat dissipater being in thermal communication with the heat sink. 25. A bearing assembly comprising: an inner ring; and an outer ring, wherein at least one cooling reservoir in arranged at the inner and/or the outer ring and wherein at least one cooling reservoir comprises a port for exchange of a cooling medium. The Examiner relies on the following prior in rejecting the appealed claims: Ono et al. Katsuzawa et al. Laredius Hemmelmann et al. US 5,225,142 US 2005/0141796 Al WO 2008/041919 Al US 2010/0079016 Al art references as evidence June 29,1993 June 30, 2005 Apr. 10, 2008 Apr. 01,2010 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: Claims 16—21, 23, 25, and 27—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Laredius. Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laredius in view of Ono and Hemmelmann. Claims 26 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laredius in view of Katsuzawa. We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection as to rejected claims 16—21 and 23. We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection as to claims 2 Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 25 and 27—29. We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 22 and 24. We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 26 and 30. Our reasoning follows. For each of the stated rejections, the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case establishing the non-patentability of the rejected claims. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation Rejection In order for the Examiner to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation, the Examiner must establish where each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim, is found in a single prior art reference, either expressly or under the principles of inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant presents separate arguments for independent claims 16 and 25. The other rejected claims are not addressed separately from the claims from which they depend or refer back to. Accordingly, we select claims 16 and 25 as the representative claims. Representative Claim 16 Claim 16 requires a direct drive wind turbine that includes a generator having a rotor and a stator, a bearing having an inner ring and an outer ring that connect, respectively, to the rotor and the stator for relative rotation and a cooling system including a heat sink in thermal communication with the inner ring, and a heat dissipater in thermal communication with the heat sink as set forth in claim 16. The Examiner finds that (Final Act. 3): 3 Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 Laredius discloses a generator (56 of Figure 2) with a rotor (10 of Figure 1-3) and a stator (20 of Figure 1-3); a bearing (30 of Figure 1-3) with an inner ring (33 of Figure 3) and an outer ring (31 of Figure 3) connecting the rotor (10 of Figure 1-3) and the stator (20 of Figure 1-3) rotatively, a thermal control system (50 of Figure 1-3) comprising: a cooling system (Page 6, lines 11- 15) comprising: a heat sink (40 of Figure 1-2,4) in thermal communication with the inner ring (33 of Figure 3) of the bearing (30 of Figure 1-3), and a heat dissipater (55 of Figure 1) being in thermal communication with the heat sink (40 of Figure 1-2,4). The Examiner finds that “Laredius discloses the heat sink of Figure 2 in thermal communication with the inner ring (33 of Figure 3) which is near the rotor (10 of Figure 3)” (Final Office Act. 7). In addition, the Examiner finds that (Ans. 2): Figure 3 [of Laredius] shows a close up view of the inner ring (33 of Figure 3) and outer ring (31 of Figure 3) that the bearing (30) of Figures 1 and 2 comprise. Looking at Figure 3 it clearly shows the inner ring (33) is near the bearing housing (12 of Figures 1-3). Therefore, in Figure 2, Laredius discloses a heat sink (40 of Figure 2) which is in thermal communication with the inner ring (33 of Figure 3), which is near the bearing housing (12 of Figure 2). Appellant argues that Figure 3 of Laredius does not show energy exchanger 40 in thermal communication with inner ring 33 but rather near to outer ring 31 and Laredius discloses that “[tjhermal energy” is easily conducted to outer ring 31” (App. Br. 8; Laredius p. 8, Fig. 3). Appellant contends that Figure 2 of Laredius is drawn to another and different embodiment than depicted in the other applied drawing figures including Figures 1 and 3 (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6). According to 4 Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 Appellant, in Figure 2: (a) the energy exchanger 40 is arranged in a bearing housing 12, (b) a cavity 41, as shown in Figures 1 and 3, is not shown as part of Figure 2, and (c) the exchanger 40 is not arranged at a non-depicted inner ring 33 of the bearing 30 in Figure 2 (App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 5—6; Laredius p. 2,11. 31-32, p. 7,1. 20-p. 8,1. 16; Fig. 2). Upon consideration of the opposing findings and positions of Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Examiner’s efforts fall short in establishing that Laredius describes every element as set forth in claim 16 and arranged as required by claim 16 based on the Examiner’s proposed combination of Laredius’ Figures, including Figure 3 with the embodiment of Figure 2 as presented in the anticipation rejection (Final Act. 3). In particular, the Figure 2 embodiment of Laredius employs a Peltier element 42 as the thermal energy exchanger 40 and employs a vibration sensor connected to control unit 58 and provides a generator 56 and uses internally generated power for the control unit (p. 7,11. 20-31, p. 8,11. 6—16). The Examiner has not demonstrated that Laredius describes using a generator 56, as Laredius describes using with the Peltier element and vibration sensor of the Figure 2 embodiment with the Figure 1/ Figure 3 embodiment of Laredius wherein a fluid is transported through a cavity 41 of an exchanger 40 for transporting heat. Yet, the Examiner relies on generator 56 of Figure 2 of Laredius in combination with cooling system features from Figures 1 and 3 of Laredius in attempting to show anticipation of claim 16 by Laredius (Final Act. 3; Laredius, Fig. 1, col. 6,11. 11—15). In addition, the Examiner does not otherwise address how the rotating machine, such as the disc refiner described by Laredius, comprises a direct 5 Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 drive wind turbine including all of the features as required by Appellant’s claim 16 (Final Act. 3, 7; Ans. 2; Laredius, p. 5,11. 15—27). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 16 and depending claims 17—21, and 23. Representative Claim 25 Claim 25 is directed to a bearing assembly comprising an inner ring and an outer ring wherein at least one cooling reservoir, including a port, is arranged at the inner and/or the outer ring, as set forth in claim 25. The Examiner finds that (Ans. 4; Laredius, Fig. 3): Laredius discloses an inner ring (33 of Figure 3); and an outer ring (31 of Figure 3), wherein at least one cooling reservoir (41,52 of Figure 1) is arranged at least at the inner [ring] (33 of Figure 3) and/or the outer ring (31 of Figure 3) and wherein the cooling reservoir comprises a port for exchange of a cooling medium (51 of Figure 1). Appellant’s argues that the Examiner’s reliance on fluid flow cavity 41 of Laredius as corresponding to the reservoir of claim 25 is in error because Laredius discloses its reservoir as element 52 and, consequently, cavity 41 of Laredius, through which a fluid is allowed to flow, is clearly not a cooling reservoir as required by claim 25 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7). However, Appellant discloses that cooling fluid (water) can be allowed to flow through Appellant’s cooling reservoir (Spec. 7,11. 31—34). Consequently, Appellant’s argument that the cavity of Laredius is not a cooling reservoir because of the allowed for fluid flow therein lacks merit. In addition, Appellant argues that cavity 41 of Laredius is within housing 21 and hence is not at the inner or outer ring as required by claim 25 6 Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 (App. Br. 9—10; Laredius, Fig. 3). This argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 25 because outer ring 31 of Laredius is supported against the bearing housing 21, which includes the cavity 41 in Figure 3 of Laredius. Consequently, the cavity provides for a cooling reservoir (cavity 41) located at the outer bearing ring 31 of Laredius which meets the argued reservoir location required by claim 25, as found by the Examiner (Final Act. 4; Ans. 2—3; Laredius, Fig. 3, col. 8,11. 18—26). Appellant’s additional argument with respect to Figure 2 of Laredius in the reply Brief is off the mark because reliance on the Figure 2 embodiment of Laredius is not necessary to the Examiner’s determination that Laredius anticipates claim 25 (Reply Br. 6—7; Ans. 2—3; Final Act. 4). It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 25 and the non-separately argued claims 27—29, which depend from or refer back to claim 25. Obviousness rejections Claims 22 and 24, which depend from claim 16, are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laredius in view of Ono and Hemmelmann. The Examiner builds the latter rejection on the Examiner’s faulty anticipation rejection of claim 16 and does not articulate how the additional applied references in this obviousness rejection cure the deficiencies in the base anticipation rejection (Final Act. 5). It follows that we shall reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 22 and 24. 7 Appeal 2016-002192 Application 13/520,396 Claims 26 and 30, which depend from claim 25, are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laredius in view of Katsuzawa. Appellants rely on the argument presented with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 25 and the features of claim 25 without presenting additional separate argument with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 26 and 30 (App. Br. 11). It follows that we shall affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 26 and 30. CONCLUSION/ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16—21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Laredius, and to reject claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laredius in view of Ono and Hemmelmann is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25, and 27—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Laredius, and to reject claims 26 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laredius in view of Katsuzawa 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation