Ex Parte Merzhaeuser

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2019

14308792 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/308,792 06/19/2014
6147 7590 01/25/2019
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Merzhaeuser
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
271238-1 7861
EXAMINER
HAGHIGHIAN, BEHNOUSH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2019 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS MERZHAEUSER 1
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1-11 and 16-20. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal
Br. 2) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A wind turbine blade, comprising:
a first blade segment connected to a second blade
segment where the first blade segment and the second blade
segment extend in opposite directions from a chord-wise joint,
each of the blade segments having a pressure side shell
member, a suction side shell member, and an internal support
structure;
the first blade segment comprising a beam structure
extending lengthways within the first blade segment to enable
structural connection with the second blade segment at a
receiving section within the second blade segment, wherein the
beam structure forms a portion of the internal support structure
of the first blade segment and comprises a shear web connected
with a suction side spar cap and a pressure side spar cap; and
one or more first bolt joints located at a first end of the
beam structure for connecting with the receiving section of the
second blade segment; and
a plurality of second bolt joints located at the chord-wise
joint, wherein the one or more first bolt joints located at the first
end of the beam structure are separated span-wise with the
plurality of second bolt joints located at the chord-wise joint,
and
wherein the receiving section of the second blade
segment comprises a plurality of spar structures that extend
lengthways within the second section to enable connection to
the beam structure of the first blade segment and
wherein the spar structures comprise a first bolt joint slot
and a second bolt slot suitable for alignment with a third bolt
joint slot in the beam structure to enable positioning of a bolt
tube or pin within each of the bolt joint slots for joining the
beam structure and the spar structures.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
REJECTIONS
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hancock (US 2011/0091326 Al, pub. Apr. 21, 2011) and
Lemos (US 2014/0286780 Al, pub. Sept. 25, 2014).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hancock, Lemos, and Hibbard (WO 2015/051803 Al, pub. Apr. 16, 2015).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hancock, Lemos, and Arms (US 2011/0158806 Al, pub. June 30,
2011).
Claims 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hancock, Lemos, and Kawasetsu (US 2011/0052403 Al,
pub. Mar. 3, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Claim 3 For Lack of Enablement
Dependent claim 3 recites second bolt joints comprising "one or more
flanges that are configured to distribute compression loads at the chord-wise
joint." Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines that the
Specification fails to enable "compression loads at the chord-wise joint" by
not specifying how these loads are produced or what they are. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that a skilled artisan would understand the compression
loads to be produced by something pressing upon something else but there
are no elements such as screws or nuts. Id. The Examiner also finds that a
skilled artisan would have to engage in undue experimentation to provide
flanges for "compression loads at the chord-wise joint." Id.; Ans. 17-18.
3
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
Appellant responds that a skilled artisan would understand that the
compression loads on joints of a wind blade are caused by bending during
operation and gravitational loads that occur in the horizontal and vertical
positions during rotation of the wind blade. Appeal Br. 17.
The USPTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable
explanation as to why the scope of protection provided by the claim is not
adequately enabled by the description in the specification. In re Wright, 999
F.2d 1557, 1561---62 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Wands factors must be considered to
determine whether undue experimentation is required. The factors include:
(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of
direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of
working examples, ( 4) the nature of the invention, ( 5) the state
of the prior art, ( 6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the
predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth
of the claims.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see MPEP § 2164.04
("The examiner's analysis must consider all the evidence related to each of
these factors"). Here, the Examiner's analysis does not consider the Wands
factors such as the examples that include leading and trailing edge bolt joints
contrary to the Examiner's finding that no such elements are disclosed. Nor
has the Examiner addressed Appellant's explanation of compression loads.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 for lack of enablement.
Claims 5 and 6 As Being Indefinite
Claim 5 recites the wind turbine blade comprises "a sensor element
disposed on the one first bolt joint for measuring multiple parameters."
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites "wherein the multiple parameters
measured by the sensor element comprises blade loads or stresses." Appeal
Br. 20 (Claims App.).
4
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
The Examiner finds that claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear
what parameters are measured. Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner
finds that claim 5 does not clearly identify what the parameters are and thus
does not particularly point out or distinctly claim the invention. Id. The
Examiner also rejects claim 6 due to its dependency from claim 5. Id.
Appellant argues that skilled artisans would understand the meaning
of this term as evidenced by Arms and that claim 6 identifies specific
parameters.
"The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or
a joint inventor regards as the invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). For pending
applications that have not issued as a patent, "[a] claim is indefinite when it
contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear." In re Packard, 751
F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Merely claiming broadly does not
render a claim indefinite as long as its meaning is clear, however. See In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness.").
The Specification discloses that sensor element 51 in pin or bolt tube
52 can receive or send signals to a control unit to enable sensing multiple
parameters including blade loads or stresses. Spec. ,r 24. Claim 6 recites
that the parameters comprise blade loads or stresses.
The Examiner finds that the sensor element in claim 5 measures
multiple parameters, but it is unclear what those parameters are. Final Act.
5. The Examiner interprets the parameters to include blade load or stress.
Id. The Examiner reasons that many parameters can be measured for a wind
turbine, but it is not clear which ones are covered by claim 5. Ans. 18.
5
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
The Examiner's concerns appear to result from the breadth of claim 5.
Claim 5 is broad enough to cover any parameter associated with operation of
a wind turbine blade including blade loads and stresses. Appellant has not
limited the types of parameters that may be sensed to any particular ones.
We find the meaning of claim 5 to be broad, but clear. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 5, and we similarly do not sustain the
rejection of claim 6 depending therefrom.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 16--18
Unpatentable Over Hancock and Lemos
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 16-18 as a group. Appeal
Br. 4--15. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2, 4, 7-9, and
16-18 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hancock discloses a wind
turbine blade with all of the claimed features, including spar structures, but
the spar structures lack first and second bolt joint slots that align with a third
bolt joint slot in the beam structure to enable positioning of a bolt tube or pin
within each of the bolt joint slots for joining the beam structure and the spar
structures as claimed. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner finds that Lemos
teaches these features. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to use the known technique of Lemos to improve the similar
device of Hancock in the same way. Id. at 8. The Examiner reasons that the
slots and bolts would add another backup, redundant means of securing the
two segments together. Ans. 5-6. In combination with the securing means
of Hancock, the slots and bolts of Lemos would secure the two segments of
Hancock in the axial direction and would result in the two segments being
securely held in place against tension and shear forces and axial movement
with additional support in the chordwise direction. Id. at 6.
6
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the friction fit
of Hancock would be improved by the bolt joint slots of Lemos. Appeal Br.
10. Appellant argues that there is no evidence of a problem securing
Hancock's blade segments so there would be no reason to modify Hancock
with Lemos. Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues that the modification therefore
would amount to extra work and expense for no apparent reason. Id.
The Examiner's reason for combining the bolts and holes securing of
Lemos with the sectional wind turbine blade of Hancock is supported by a
rational underpinning. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417
(2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill."); Ans. 6 (use of known technique).
Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to
combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned
from the prior art as a whole, but when the "improvement" is
technology-independent and the combination of references
results in a product or process that is more desirable, for
example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter,
smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or
process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have
held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine
prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the
references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is
whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills
rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added), discussed in Arendi
S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
7
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
As the Examiner points out, the securing means of Lemos would
supplement the securing system of Hancock to provide a backup system for
securing the two blade segments together. The finding is particularly
relevant given Hancock's teachings that modem wind turbine blades weigh
up to 15 tons and can extend up to 55 meters. Hancock ,r 2. Lemos teaches
blades under implementation that extend more than 80 meters. Lemos ,r 3.
This evidence, by itself, supports the Examiner's reasoning. Wind
turbine blades are extremely heavy and long, and they are expected to get
larger and heavier still. Adding a second securing feature to hold two blade
segments together against axial movement would improve safety. Ans. 5.
Therefore, contrary to Appellant's arguments, there is a reason to
expend extra work, resources, and expense in upgrading and improving the
connection of blade segments 1002, 1003 of Hancock. Lemos provides a
relatively inexpensive, simple, and easy-to-implement way to do so.
But there are other reasons as well. Appellant argues repeatedly that
Hancock teaches a friction fit as the means to secure blade segments 1002,
1003 together. See Appeal Br. 10, 12; Reply Br. 4--5. We find no express
teaching of a friction fit or interference fit in Hancock, nor does Appellant
cite to any such teaching in Hancock. However, if we assume for sake of
argument that Hancock's drawings would be understood to teach a friction
fit between blade segments, then Lemos' holes and bolts would provide an
added advantage of a different type of securing system to a friction fit, i.e.,
one that may not fail for the same reasons as Hancock's system. The holes
and bolts would not require the same manufacturing tolerances of a friction
fit but would hold the segments securely in place against tension and shear
forces and axial movement as an additional chord support. See Ans. 6.
8
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
Lemos uses holes and bolts to connect complementary spar sections,
whereas Hancock secures segments together along a chord. See Ans. 5.
Because Lemos' arrangement is oriented orthogonally to the chord length, it
would work against different stresses than Hancock's system. Id. at 5---6.
The Examiner also correctly finds that Hancock and Lemos connect
blade portions similarly. Final Act. 6-8. Both references use the spars in
each blade portion to form the connection. Hancock inserts spar bridge 1005
of portion 1003 in spar cavity 1007 of portion 1002. Hancock ,r 113, Fig. 9.
Lemos inserts spar projection 210 and shear web 211 of blade 200 between
spars 102 and webs 111 of tip segment 100. Lemos ,r 45, Figs. 5-10.
Appellant's efforts to distinguish the spar structure of Lemos from
that of Hancock or the claimed blade are not persuasive. Appellant discloses
blade segment 30 with beam structure 40 that protrudes from spar section 42
as shown in Figure 3. Spec. ,r 19. Beam structure 40 is an extension of spar
section 42. It has spar caps 46, 48 on suction and pressure sides with shear
webs 44 on the remaining sides. Id. The use of the term "web" by Lemos to
describe part of its spar structure does not alter the fact that web 111 is part
of the spar structure. Thus, the teaching in Lemos to form holes in web 111
corresponds to Hancock's spar bridge 1005 as the Examiner correctly finds.
Furthermore, the Examiner also correctly finds that Hancock teaches
the use of access hatch 13 to provide access to fixing and tensioning member
10, 12 of Hancock's spar bridge 5 when it is placed inside spar section 7 as
shown in Figure 2. Hancock ,r 88. The Examiner reasons correctly that this
feature would provide similar access for tightening the nuts and bolts of the
Lemos connection when it is added to spar bridge 1005 and spar cavity 1007
of Hancock.
9
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
Hancock does not use hatch 13 to tighten nuts and bolts that secure a
spar bridge inside spar cavity. Reply Br. 8. However, Hancock teaches to
use hatches to access nuts and bolts to tighten blade sections together. Ans.
14. Access hatch 13 is used to adjust tensioning member 12 of spar bridge 5
inside spar section 7 of another blade portion 2 to pull blade portions 2, 3
together. Hancock ,r,r 86-88. The Examiner proposes to use such a hatch to
tighten bolts and nuts added to Hancock's spar sections to hold the blade
segments together in the Figure 9 embodiment of Hancock, which is relied
on by the Examiner for the rejection. See Final Act. 6-7.
We also agree with the Examiner that Lemos is evidence of the
success a skilled artisan would expect when combining Lemos' bolts and
holes with the teachings of Hancock. Ans. 14. They are employed on the
same types of spar structures for the same purpose. "The reasonable
expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in
combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention."
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F .3 d 13 59,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, claim 1 requires the spar structure of the second blade segment
to include bolt joint slots suitable for alignment with a third bolt joint slot in
the beam structure of the first blade segment "to enable positioning of a bolt
tube or pin within each of the bolt joint slots for joining the beam structure
and the spar structures." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Lemos is evidence
that these features can be formed in spar beams and spar structures and that a
skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in forming
them on the similar spar beam and spar structures of Hancock as claimed.
10
Appeal2018-004779
Application 14/308, 792
Moreover, Lemos teaches to use nuts, bolts, and holes 113 to secure
spar beams and spar structures together in conjunction with adhesive, which
can be applied between the spar beam and spar structures. Lemos ,r 45. The
Examiner proposes to use such nuts, bolts, and holes with Hancock's similar
spar structures to supplement Hancock's chordwise securing system in the
same way Lemos teaches to do for similar results, i.e., to prevent the blade
portions from separating. Final Act. 8; Ans. 5.
For all the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, 7-9, and 16-18.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 19, and 20
Unpatentable Over Hancock, Lemos, and Hibbard/Arms/Kawasetsu
Appellant argues that claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are patentable
because they depend from a nonobvious independent claim. Appeal Br. 16.
Because we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16, this
argument is not persuasive, and we also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5,
6, 10, 11, 19, and 20.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack
of enablement.
We reverse the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as being indefinite.
We affirm the prior art rejections of claims 1-11 and 16-20.
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
11