Ex Parte Mortensen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13254484 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
13/254,484 09/02/2011 Ivan Engmark Mortensen 31673U 9337
20529 7590 03/22/2017
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
GRUN, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IVAN ENGMARK MORTENSEN
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,4841
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Swannell2 in view of Althoff.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).4
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is LM GLASFIBER A/S.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Swannell, US 4,383,818, issued May 17, 1983 (“Swannell”).
3 Althoff et al., US 2008/0219851 Al, published Sept. 11, 2008 (“Althoff’).
4 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Specification filed Sept. 2, 2011
(Spec.), the Appeal Brief filed May 22, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Oct. 23, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 23, 2015
(Reply Br.).
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,484
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods for manufacturing
wind turbine blades (see, e.g., claim 1). Appellant discloses it is known to
manufacture wind turbine blades by forming shell parts made of fiber-
reinforced polymer in separate molds, such as by arranging glass fiber mats
in each of the two mold parts, injecting liquid resin, and joining the two
halves of the blade together after the resin has cured. Spec. 1:12—22.
Vacuum assisted resin transfer molding is one method used to mold the shell
parts for a wind turbine blade. Id. at 1:27—31.
Appellant discloses it is difficult to scale conventional project oriented
manufacturing methods as the demand for wind turbines rapidly increases
because these methods require all materials to be transported to every work
shop, require every work shop to be equipped with tools and molds, and
necessitate a large use of space, which create large logistical demands and
expenses. Id. at 2:20-33. In view of this, Appellant discloses a need for a
method of producing large wind turbine blades that allows increased
throughput and optimizes the use of expensive molds and/or skilled labor to
improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the production process. Id. at
3:22-27.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.5 The limitations at issue are italicized
and reformatting with indenting has been added.
1. A method for manufacturing wind turbine blades having a
length of at least 30 metres and having a composite shell
structure comprising a matrix material and a fibre reinforcement
5 Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 13.
2
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,484
material by use of vacuum assisted resin transfer moulding
(VARTM),
the wind turbine blades being formed in a number of
moulds (40), each of the number of moulds (40) comprising at
least a first mould part (41) and a second mould part (43), said
mould parts being used to form separate shell parts adhered to
each other to form a wind turbine blade, each of said shell parts
being formed by arranging fibre-reinforcing material in a mould
cavity of each mould part,
each mould cavity being formed by sealing a vacuum bag
to the mould part and coupling a vacuum source to each of the
mould cavities so as to be evacuated prior to the injection of
liquid curable matrix material,
characterised in that the method comprises a
manufacturing line (30) comprising a number of separate work
stations (31, 32), where separate manufacturing steps are carried
out, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a) arranging the fibre reinforcement material in the mould
cavities of the first mould part (41) and the second mould part
(43) of a first mould (40) at a first work station (31),
b) moving the first mould part (41) and the second mould
part (43) with the fibre reinforcement materials by use of
conveying means to a second work station (32) having a different
position than the first work station (31), and
c) supplying the liquid curable matrix material to the
mould cavities of the first mould part (41) and the second mould
part (43) at the second work station (32).
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Swannell discloses a method of manufacturing
large composites made of a matrix material and a fiber reinforcement
material via vacuum assisted resin transfer molding. Ans. 3. The process of
Swannell includes molding in molds that each include a female mold part
and a male mold part. Id. The Examiner finds the process of Swannell
includes the steps recited in claim 1 but Swannell does not disclose that the
3
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,484
composite is a wind turbine blade having a length of at least 30 meters or
that mold parts are used to form separate shell parts adhered to each other to
form a wind turbine blade. Id.
The Examiner finds Althoff discloses wind turbine blades 30 meters
or more in length that can be formed by various methods, such as vacuum
assisted resin transfer molding. Id. The Examiner further finds Althoff
discloses the use of molds having two pieces so the two mold pieces form
separate shells that are adhered to one another to produce a wind turbine
blade. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify
the process of Swannell to form the wind turbine blades of Althoff. Id. at 3—
4.
Appellant contends Swannell does not disclose “a first mould part and
a second mould part,” wherein each mold part has a mold cavity, as recited
in claim 1, because Swannell discloses molds formed by a female portion
and a male portion. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that Althoff fails to
remedy the deficiencies of Swannell because the Examiner relies on Althoff
to merely disclose wind turbine blades having a length of at least 30 meters
and mold parts that form separate shell parts that are adhered together to
form a wind turbine blade. Id. at 10—11.
As an initial matter central to our discussion of the Appellant’s
arguments, we must construe the language of claim 1 regarding the use of a
“number of moulds (40) comprising at least a first mould part (41) and a
second mould part (43)” that are “used to form separate shell parts adhered
to each other to form a wind turbine blade.” We find this language does not
exclude the use of separate molds or mold parts to mold two separate shells
that are subsequently joined together to form a wind turbine blade. In fact,
4
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,484
claim 1 expressly recites the first and second mold parts are “used to form
separate shell parts adhered to each other to form a wind turbine blade,”
which reads upon processes in which separate molds are used to form
separate shells that are joined to one another after molding.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds Swannell
discloses the production of parts, but not wind turbine blades, via vacuum
assisted resin transfer molding and molds including male and female mold
parts. Ans. 6. However, the Examiner finds Althoff discloses molds for
wind turbine blades in which mold halves, which each have a cavity, are
each used to form a shell that are later assembled with one another. Id.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Althoff discloses a first half shell 403 made
via a first mold 1003 and a second shell 302 depicted in Figure 11 of Althoff
“would intrinsically come from a second mold.” Id. at 6—7.
The disclosure of Althoff supports the Examiner’s findings. Althoff
discloses the first shell 401 is made via a process using mold 1003 and, after
forming the first shell 401 and a second shell portion 405, the first shell 401
and the second shell portion 405 are joined together. Althoff H 31, 32 and
Figure 11. Although Althoff does not describe the particular process for
manufacturing the second shell 302, the Examiner’s finding that the second
shell 302 would come from a second mold is reasonable because Althoff
does not disclose the second shell 302 as being made by the mold for the
first shell 401 and Figure 11 depicts the second shell 302 as having a
different structure than the first shell 401.
Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings or
otherwise identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In addition,
5
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,484
as the Examiner finds,6 Althoff discloses the shells may be formed via
various methods, including vacuum assisted resin transfer molding,7 which
is the method used by Swannell.8 Thus, the combination of Swannell and
Althoff suggests using separate mold parts, as disclosed by Althoff, in the
vacuum assisted resin transfer molding process of Swannell. This process
falls within our interpretation of the language “number of moulds (40)
comprising at least a first mould part (41) and a second mould part (43)” that
are “used to form separate shell parts adhered to each other to form a wind
turbine blade,” as set forth above for claim 1.
Appellant further asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have lacked a reason to combine Swannell and Althoff because Swannell’s
process of using male and female mold portions would not be feasible for
manufacturing wind turbine blades. Appeal Br. 9-10. In particular, the size
of wind turbine blades at least 30 meters long would make it impossible to
combine male and female mold portions to form the blades, which “would
lead to inaccurate formation of the blades.” Id. at 10. Appellant also argues
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Swannell’s process
because it moves a mold along a circular or oval pathway in a closed loop.
Id. Using such a process to manufacture wind turbine blades at least 30
meters in length would require two parallel production lines spaced at least
30 meters apart. Id. Appellant argues this makes Swannell’s process highly
impractical, costly, and would result in an excessively long and wide
manufacturing line. Id. Appellant further contends the large difference in
6 Ans. 6.
7 Althoff 131.
8 Swannell 1:44-47.
6
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,484
size between the automobile body parts produced by the process of Swannell
and the wind turbine blades disclosed by Althoff would have caused one of
ordinary skill in the art to not use the process of Swannell to manufacture
wind turbine blades. Reply Br. 8—9.9
These arguments are unpersuasive because Appellant does not provide
any evidence or technical reasoning to support the argument that Swannell’s
process would not be feasible for molding wind turbine blades or would lead
to inaccurate molding of such blades. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments that
the combination of Swannell and Althoff would be highly impractical,
costly, result in a large manufacturing line, and the differences between the
products of Swannell and Althoff would have made the combination of
Swannell and Althoff non-obvious, do not demonstrate the proposed
modification would have been beyond the capabilities of a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Absent such an assertion supported by evidence, we
“take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ,” and find a person of ordinary skill in the art
would overcome those difficulties within their level of skill. KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2—15 separately from
claim 1. Appeal Br. 11.
9 At page 9 of the Reply Brief Appellant argues “the Examiner does not
discuss in detail the fact that the present claims relate to two moulds that are
moved in parallel” and also cites claim 3. Appellant has not shown good
cause why these arguments could not have been presented in the Appeal
Brief. Therefore, we will not consider the separate arguments for claim 3 or
other arguments related to “two moulds that are moved in parallel” that are
newly raised in the Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2015).
7
Appeal 2016-002670
Application 13/254,484
For these reasons and those expressed in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—15 over the combination
of Swannell and Althoff.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
8