Ex Parte Fuglsang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 2017

13500868 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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. 13/500,868 04/06/2012 Peter Fuglsang 32220U 1469 20529 7590 08/23/2017 NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER Joshua Goldberg 112 South West Street Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER FLORES, JUAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2017 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): USPTO@nathlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER FUGLSANG, STEFANO BOVE, PETER GRABAU, V.V. SUBRAHMANYAM, BRIAN LUND, LARS E. JENSEN, and SREERAM KOTTUMUKLU RADHAKRISHNAN Appeal 2016-0072281 Application 13/500,8682 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 18, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 19, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 19, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 25, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “LM GLASFIBER A/S.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-007228 Application 13/500,868 BACKGROUND According to the Specification, “[t]he present invention relates to a blade for a rotor of a wind turbine.” Spec. 1,1. 5. CLAIMS Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A blade (10) for a rotor of a wind turbine (2) having a substantially horizontal rotor shaft, said rotor comprising a hub (8), from which the blade (10) extends substantially in a radial direction when mounted to the hub (8), the blade having a longitudinal direction (r) with a tip end (14) and a root end (16) and a transverse direction, the blade further comprising: a profiled contour (40, 42, 50) including a pressure side and a suction side, as well as a leading edge (18) and a trailing edge (20) with a chord having a chord length extending there between, the profiled contour, when being impacted by an incident airflow, generating a lift, wherein the blade is provided with a flow guiding device (70) added to and protruding from the profiled contour (40, 42, 50) of the blade on the pressure side (52) of the blade (10), characterised in that the flow guiding device (70) has a front surface (72) facing toward an oncoming airflow and having an proximal point (74) located at the profiled contour (40, 42, 50) and a distal point (76) located at a distance from the profiled contour (40, 42, 50) of the blade, wherein the profiled contour (40, 42, 50) has a surface normal (82) at the proximal point (74), and wherein the front surface (72) comprises at least a first portion, which is angled towards the oncoming airflow and the leading edge (18) of the blade so that an average tangent or median line to said first portion forms a first angle (e) with the surface normal being larger than 0 degrees, and wherein 2 Appeal 2016-007228 Application 13/500,868 the flow guiding device is arranged and adapted to generate a separation of airflow downstream of the flow guiding device (70) between the flow guiding device (70) and the trailing edge (20) of the blade. Appeal Br. 13—14. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14, and 16—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Corten.3 2. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Corten in view of Petsche.4 3. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Corten in view of Schenk.5 4. The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Corten in view of Heronemus.6 DISCUSSION Anticipation With respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16, Appellants argue only that Corten’s flow guiding device, identified as rib 36 by the Examiner, is not angled towards the leading edge of the blade. Appeal Br. 8—9. In particular, Appellants argue: At column 2, lines 14-16, Corten discloses the rib is arranged in a plane that forms an angle between 30° and 150°. ft is understood that the rib of Corten will form two angles with the chordal plane, one being acute and one being obtuse. As 3 Corten, US 6,910,867 B2, iss. June 28, 2005. 4 Petsche et al., WO 2007/118581 Al, pub. Oct. 25, 2007. 5 Schenk et al., US 4,354,648, iss. Oct. 19, 1982. 6 Heronemus, US 2003/0170123 Al, pub. Sept. 11, 2003. 3 Appeal 2016-007228 Application 13/500,868 indicated at column 2, lines 13-17, the sum of the angles amount to 180°. Therefore, Figures 2 and 3 of Corten indicate the rib is not angled towards the incoming flow and at the leading edge of the blade. In fact, the rib is angled away from the incoming flow. Id. at 9. We disagree. Appellants do not point to any specific indication that Corten’s disclosure should be interpreted contrary to its plain meaning, which explicitly indicates that the rib 36 forms an angle between 30° and 150°. Appellants do not explain why Corten should be “understood” to mean that the total angle should be 180° with respect to the chordal plain. Further, as a matter of basic geometry, we note that the angles of the rib would necessary add to 180° with respect to any plane from which the rib extends. Thus, it is not clear why Corten would have used the language “between 30° and 150°” to describe the angle of the device rather than simply stating an angle of 30° or an angle between 30° and 90° to indicate that an acute and an obtuse angle are formed, as Appellants’ assert. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that Corten discloses that the angle of the rib may be between 30° and 150°, which would include angles in which the rib is angled toward the leading edge of the blade as required by the claim. For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 16 as anticipated by Corten. For the same reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2, 4—12, 14, 17, and 18, for which Appellants do not present separate arguments. 4 Appeal 2016-007228 Application 13/500,868 Obviousness Appellants argue only that the prior art of record does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 10—11,7 Having found no such deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejections of claims 3, 13, 15, and 19 as obvious. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—19 for the reasons state herein. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 We find that Appellants’ argument with respect to the rejection of claim 3 in the Reply Brief is untimely and will not be considered here. See Reply Br. \ \\see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 5