Ex Parte Rohden

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

13821222 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/821,222 05/23/2013
136767 7590 05/25/2018
Seed IP Law Group LLP/General Firm (Email)
701 FIFTH A VE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RolfRohden
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.
970054.559USPC 6328
EXAMINER
POLAY, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2018 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLF ROHDEN 1
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
Technology Center 3600
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIELS. SONG, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 12-15 in the present application (App. Br.
2). Claims 7, 10, 11, and 16-19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134.
We REVERSE.
1 Referred to as "Appellant" herein. The real party in interest is Wobben
Properties GmbH. (Appeal Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.") 1 ).
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
The claimed invention is directed to a ship having a Magnus rotor and
a load measuring device (Title; Abst.). Representative independent claim 1
reads as follows (App. Br. 14, Claims App'x):
1. A cargo ship comprising:
a Magnus rotor for driving the ship, the Magnus rotor
including a fixed support structure having an inner surface and
located in an interior of the Magnus rotor, the fixed support
structure being fixedly coupled to the ship and configured to
mount the Magnus rotor to the ship;
a measuring device arranged on the inner surface of the
fixed support structure for determining flexural loads acting on
the fixed support structure and to output signals indicative of the
flexural loads; and
a data processing installation coupled to the measuring
device and configured to receive the signals from the measuring
device, wherein the data processing installation determines:
a force vector based on the signals received from the
measuring device;
using the force vector, whether the Magnus rotor is
contributing to the propulsion of the ship; and
using the force vector, an adjustment to the Magnus
rotor in order to increase or decrease an amount of
propulsion the Magnus rotor is contributing to the
propulsion of the ship.
Independent claim 12 recites a method of determining a thrust of a
Magnus rotor that is mounted to a ship (App. Br. 15-16; Claims App'x).
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of North (US 4,602,584, iss. July
29, 1986), Potter (US 4,342,539, iss. Aug. 3, 1982), McDearmon (US
RE39,838 E, iss. Sept. 18, 2007), and Asker (US 4,398,895, iss. Aug. 16,
2
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
1983) (Answer (hereinafter "Ans. ") 1; see also Final Office Action
(hereinafter "Final Act.") 2).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 12-15 as obvious over the
combination of North, Potter, McDearmon, and Asker2 (Ans. 2; see also
Final Act. 2). With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that North
discloses a ship having most of the limitations of the claim except for
determining flexural loading on a carrier of the Magnus rotor, or
determining a force vector (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner finds:
Potter discloses a wind driven rotor comprising a
measuring device (Element 64) arranged of the fixed support
structure and to output signals indicative of the flexural loads
(Element 29, Fig. 3) for determining a flexural loading on the
fixed support structure (paragraph starting at C8, L41) and a data
processing installation (Fig. 7 .) coupled to the measuring device
and configured to receive the signals from the measuring device.
(Final Act. 3).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have added the measuring device disclosed in
Potter to the fixed support structure of North in order to "provide
information to be able to limit allowable stress ratings for the constituent
parts." (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3-5).
2 The heading for the rejection does not identify Asker, but the text of the
rejection relies upon Asker (Final Act. 2, 4). The Appellant does not object
to this discrepancy, and thus, has waived any objections based thereon. We
address the rejection accordingly.
3
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
The Examiner also finds that McDearmon discloses a carrier with first
and second strain gauge sensors that are spaced at a non-zero angle relative
to each other, and concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill to have arranged the measuring devices in the combination of
North and Potter "to resolve the force into axial components as in
McDearmon C6, L 13-22." (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner further finds:
Asker discloses wherein the force generated by Magnus
rotor can be represented by a vector that determines whether the
Magnus rotor is contributing to the propulsion of the ship (Fig.
7 .), and controlling the Magnus rotor in order to increase or
decrease an amount of propulsion the Magnus rotor is
contributing to the propulsion of the ship. (C7, L54 - C8, LIO).
(Final Act. 4).
Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill to have used the force vector to adjust the Magnus rotor to
"automate the manual activity of controlling the vessel using the forces on
the rotor as recognized by Asker." (Final Act. 4).
The Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's rejection and argues,
inter alia, that Potter fails to suggest using a force vector from the strain
gauges to determine information related to the propulsion of a ship (App. Br.
10). The Appellant also argues that although Asker suggests that propulsion
of a ship can be modeled by force vectors,
[t]he claimed invention, however, is not modeling the propulsion
of a ship by force vectors. Rather, the claimed invention is
directed to using a force vector, obtained from a measuring
device located on a fixed support device of a Magnus rotor, to
determine whether the Magnus rotor is contributing to the
propulsion of ship and determine an adjustment to the Magnus
4
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
rotor in order to increase or decrease an amount of propulsion the
Magnus rotor is contributing to a ship.
(App. Br. 12).
According to the Appellant, "[i]t is unclear in the record how the
combination of cited references teaches the above [claimed] subject matter"
considering "Asker fails to teach or suggest determining a force vector based
on signals indicative of flexural loads. Rather, Asker teaches using
measurements of wind speed and wind direction to control Magnus rotors."
(Reply Br. 3--4; see also App. Br. 11-12).
We are persuaded by the Appellant's arguments and find the
Examiner's articulation of the rejection lacks sufficient rational
underpinnings.
As noted above, the Examiner's articulated basis for applying Potter's
strain gauges to the Magnus rotor of North is to monitor and limit the stress
applied to the support structure of the Magnus rotor. McDearmon is relied
upon to establish that such sensors can be arranged in order to resolve the
measured strain, and thus, forces, into axial components. Accordingly, the
suggested combination of these three references results in using the signal
from the strain gauges to determine the corresponding directional forces in
order to monitor and limit the stress applied to the support structure of the
Magnus rotor in North.
The rejection further relies on Asker, the Examiner finding that while
Potter "fails to disclose using a force vector to contribute to the propulsion
of a ship," "a person of ordinary skill in the marine art understands that the
propulsion of a ship is modeled with force vectors (demonstrated by Asker
5
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
in the above rejection)" (Final Act. 10), and that "forces imparted to the
Magnus rotor are transferred [to] the support structure of the ship." (Ans. 6).
The Examiner's articulated reason for providing the strain gauges in
the Magnus rotor is reasonably supported. However, in our view, the
Examiner has not sufficiently set forth reasoning as to why it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a data
processing installation that utilizes the force vector information derived from
strain signals attained via the strain gauges to determine a Magnus rotor's
contribution to the ship's propulsion, and to determine an adjustment to the
Magnus rotor to increase or decrease the amount of propulsion.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill to have used the force vector to adjust the Magnus rotor in
order to "automate the manual activity of controlling the vessel using the
forces on the rotor as recognized by Asker" (Final Act. 4). However, while
Asker discloses automating this activity (Asker, col. 4, 11. 3-8), it does not
disclose the signals used for the automated control. In fact, Asker only
discloses information provided by wind vane 100 and wind speed generator
102 in the context of a manual control embodiment (Asker, col. 7, 1. 56-col.
8, 1. 10; Fig. 12). As such, any automation suggested by Asker would have
involved wind direction and speed, and not measured strain of a fixed
support structure. Hence, mere desirability of "automat[ing] the manual
activity" (Final Act. 4) does not address using force vectors derived from
measuring flexural loads for this automation.
No prior art reference relied upon by the Examiner utilizes a
measuring device such as strain gauges fixed onto a fixed support structure,
6
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
or force vector information derived therefrom, to control a propulsion
contributing device of a ship (see App. Br. 11 ). The Examiner has
established that a Magnus rotor for driving a ship, automated control thereof,
strain gauges for measuring flexural loads on a support structure, and
deriving force vector information from strain signals were known.
However, "a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). In that regard, "it can be important to identify a reason that would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill ... to combine the elements in the
way the claimed new invention does," and "rejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." Id. at 418.
We generally agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has failed to
establish an adequate reason why a person of ordinary skill "would consider
using a force vector based on a signals received from a measuring device on
a structural support of a moving component to determine whether the
moving component is contributing to a propulsion of a moving object, such
as a ship." (Reply Br. 4--5; see also App. Br. 11). Based on the present
record, we do not discern the Examiner as having set forth a reason that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to combine the elements in
the way suggested, which is based on rational underpinnings sufficient to
support the conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection as to independent claim 1.
7
Appeal2017-007963
Application 13/821,222
The Appellant relies on the same arguments with respect to
patentability of independent claim 12 (App. Br. 12-13). While independent
claim 12 is a method claim, the rejection and the issues raised therein are
substantively the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, we also reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
As to claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 13-15, the Appellant relies on dependency
on either claim 1 or claim 12 for patentability (App. Br. 13). Having found
the Examiner's rejection with respect to the independent claims insufficient,
we further reverse the Examiner's rejections as to dependent claims 2---6, 8,
9, and 13-15.
The disagreement between the Appellant and the Examiner as to
whether Potter and McDearmon are analogous (App. Br. 8, 1 O; Reply Br. 1-
4; Ans. 3--4, 6), and whether the signal conditioner and the comparator of
Potter satisfies the "data processing installation" recitation (App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 3; Ans. 5), is moot.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 12-15 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
8