Ex Parte Eriksen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13520396 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
13/520,396 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