Ex Parte Werle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12803079 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
12/803,079 06/18/2010 Keith Michael Werle 4708
Keith Werle
7590 09/01/2017 EXAMINER
3560 Vinings Ridge Court
Atlanta, GA 30339-5706
FLORES, JUAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEITH MICHAEL WERLE
Appeal 2016-006689
Application 12/803,079
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claim 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-006689
Application 12/803,079
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below,1 is directed to a fluid turbine with
improved wake flow:
1. A device or apparatus comprising;
a) a wind or water turbine comprising one or
more horizontal axial flow turbines,
propellers, stator, fans, impellors, or any
combination thereof, adapted in size and
shape so as to harness power from a flow or
stream of a fluid and convert it to mechanical
or electrical energy and,
b) one or more pipes, tubes, hoses, plenums,
conduits adapted in size and shape so as to
conduct a flow or stream of fluid from
outside the primary flow area directly in
front of the turbine or shroud and inject that
flow or stream of fluid into the primary
stream flow area behind or aft of the
propeller, fan or turbine (called the wake
flow area) so as to change the velocity,
direction, turbulence, pressures, mixing or
other flow properties of the primary fluid in
the wake.
1 Because claim 1 was not reproduced in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, we use the version of claim 1 provided in the Amendment After Non-
Final Rejection dated August 5, 2013 (“Aug. 5, 2013 Amend.”).
2
Appeal 2016-006689
Application 12/803,079
REFERENCES
Igra US 4,132,499 Jan. 2, 1979
Anderson US 4,720,640 Jan. 19, 1988
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Anderson. Final Act. 3.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Igra. Id.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1—Anticipated by Anderson
The Examiner finds that the embodiment depicted in Figures 11 and
12 of Anderson anticipates claim 1, with, inter alia, ventilator tubes 344A
corresponding to the claimed one or more tubes adapted in size and shape to
conduct fluid from “outside the primary flow area directly in front of the
turbine or shroud.” Final Act. 3 (citing Anderson, 14:1—4, Figs. 11, 12); see
Anderson, 14:16—24. Appellant contends that “the outer surface of the
shroud or duct is within the primary flow area,” and because Anderson’s
device takes air from “the radial outward portion of the upstream inlet
fairing of the outer support structure,” Anderson does not teach or anticipate
“a device that conducts a stream of fluid from outside the primary flow
area.” Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). In response, the Examiner states that,
based on “a computational fluid dynamics study on a ducted turbine . . .
instead of an expansion effect of the primary flow area ... a contraction of
the primary flow area occurs when a turbine rotor is placed in a duct.” Ans.
3^4 (citing Wang et al., Computational Fluid Dynamics Investigation of a
Novel Multiblade Wind Turbine in a Duct, 135 J. Solar Energy
3
Appeal 2016-006689
Application 12/803,079
Engineering, Figs. 13, 14 (Feb. 2013)). The Examiner concludes that
“fluid that would pass around the duct is not part of the primary flow area
fluid.” Id. at 4.
Appellant has not apprised us of Examiner error in finding that
Anderson anticipates claim 1. First, we are not persuaded that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would construe “primary flow area” to include a
portion of the area outside of the shroud. For example, the Specification
distinguishes primary flow from “bypass flow,” and defines “bypass flow”
as “flow outside the shroud.” Spec. 8. If bypass flow is not primary flow,
and bypass flow is flow outside the shroud, then one may reasonably infer
that flow outside of the shroud is not primary flow. In addition, the section
of the Appeal Brief discussing the meaning of “primary flow area” contains
virtually no evidentiary citations, making it difficult to determine how much
weight, if any, should be given to that discussion. Finally, Appellant does
not respond to, much less dispute, the Examiner’s determination, based on
an analysis of Wang, that fluid passing around the duct would not be
considered primary flow area fluid.
Second, regardless of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood the meaning of “primary flow area,” the claim itself
requires pipes or tubes that conduct fluid “from outside the primary flow
area directly in front of the turbine or shroud.” Aug. 5, 2013 Amend. 2
(emphasis added). That is, the claim encompasses a structure having pipes
or tubes that conduct fluid from anywhere other than directly in front of the
turbine or shroud. In Anderson, fluid flows through ventilator tubes 344A
from outside of inner shroud surface 325A, which is not directly in front of
4
Appeal 2016-006689
Application 12/803,079
the turbine or shroud. See Anderson, 14:1—24, Figs. 11, 12. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Anderson anticipates claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Anderson.
Claim 1—Anticipated by Igra
The Examiner finds that the embodiment depicted in Figure 1 of Igra
anticipates claim 1, with elements 20, 26, and 28 corresponding to the
claimed one or more pipes, tubes, plenums and conduits that conduct fluid
from outside the primary flow area. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Igra, 1:5—10, 3:2—
7, Fig. 1). Appellant contends that “all three origination areas or intake
points for the bypass flow referenced by Igra ... are all clearly within the
primary flow area as generally defined in the art,” and therefore Igra does
not anticipate “a device that conducts a stream of fluid from outside the
primary flow area as is claimed.” Br. 4—5. But Igra’s elements 20, 26, and
28 conduct fluid from a location that is not “directly in front of the turbine or
shroud,” as claim 1 requires. See Igra, 2:56—3:7, Fig. 1; see also Final Act.
3; Ans. 3. Therefore, Appellant has not apprised us of Examiner error in
finding that Igra anticipates claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Igra.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject
claim 1.
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
5