宣告專利權無效意見陳述

Statement on Opinion of Declaring Invalidation of Patent Right

一,本專利不具備創(chuàng)造性

I. This patent does not have creativity

1,本專利權利要求1是由以下必要技術特征構成:A.一種迎風轉動體類型和具有一個塔(2)類型的風車,該塔用來可轉動地支撐固定一大體水平伸出地攜帶一葉片轉子的主軸(6)的風車殼體(4); B.葉片轉子上的葉片轉子輪轂處向外延伸到前端區(qū),該前端區(qū)處于通過葉片中心軸線在葉片(10)根部形成的平面內從輪轂(8)向外延伸,并在離開輪轂(8)的一定距離后和至少沿著葉片(10)外部三分之一以向外并向前彎曲的方式延伸.

1. Claim of this patent right: 1 was constituted by the following technical features: A one windmill with a rotor type and one windmill with a tower type. This tower may rotationally support a main shaft (6) with one blade rotor extending horizontally; B the hub of blade rotor may extend to the front side, and this section is located in the central axis of blade rotor (10), and continue to extend from the plate of the end of blade hub (8), distant from the hub (8) with a considerable distance and at least along the 1/3 part of blade (10) extending forward in a bending mode.   

對比文件1是上海科學技術出版社于1990年5月出版的<<風力機設計與應用>>,早于本專利的優(yōu)先權日1997年9月4日,可以作為評判本專利的創(chuàng)造性. 在對比文件1第48-49頁中公開了風輪迎風轉動的上風向(前置式)風車形式,風輪可通過一水平主軸安裝在塔架上,風輪可設有雙葉片,三葉片,四葉片. 對比文件1第94-97頁中還公開了風車的輪轂和機艙,機艙設在塔架的上方水平軸風力發(fā)電機的電機,主軸,控制系統(tǒng)的一部分以及增速機構等都安裝在該機艙內. 可見,機艙相當于本專利的殼體(4),只是名稱的叫法不同而已. 在風輪旋轉時,其葉片是在一個沿塔架向下延伸的下部位置與一個從塔架頂部向上伸出的上部位置之間運動. 顯然,本專利必要技術特征A,B,C已被對比文件1所公開.

Comparing document is the “Design and application of windmill” published by Shanghai Science and technology Press in May 1990. Early in 4th September 1997, earlier to the priority date of this patent may counted as the creativity of this patent. The comparing document 1 page 48-49 published the windmill form of upwind (prefix model) in windmill with a rotor type, which may install on the shelf through one horizontal shaft? The windmill equipped with double-vane, three-vane and four-vane. In comparing document 1 page 94-97 also published the hub of windmill and its cabin. The motor of air driven generator, axle, part of controlling system and speed accelerate structure located in horizontal direction of the upper tower are all installed inside the cabin. In this way, the cabin is equal to the housing (4) of this patent, just using different name. When wind wheel is rotating, the blade rotor shall be moved between a lower part extending from tower and a upper part extending from the top of the tower. Obviously, the necessary technology A,B and C of this patent have been published by the comparing document.

對比文件2時一篇美國專利(專利號:4550259),于1985年10月29日公開,早于本專利的優(yōu)先權日,可以作為評判本專利創(chuàng)造性的證據.對比文件2中的圖10,圖11以及說明書中問譯文第3頁第30-33行中公開了風輪上的葉片是從轉軸處向外延伸到前端區(qū),該前端區(qū)處于通過葉片中心軸線在葉片根部形成的平面前面的移動距離上,其在所述平面內從輪轂向外延伸,并在離開轉軸的一定距離后向外并向前彎曲的方式延伸. 對比文件1第142-143公開的風輪葉片是采用玻璃鋼制造,玻璃鋼屬于彈性材料是公知常識. 因此,本專利的必要技術特征D,E已被對比文件1,2所公開. 此外,對比文件3,4,5也部分地公開了本專利的必要技術特征. 同時,相對上述對比文件,本專利權利要求1所限定的技術方案并沒有產生新的,意想不到的技術效果,因此,本專利權利要求1不具有創(chuàng)造性.

Comparing document 2 is an article of American patent (patent number:4550259), which published on 29th October 1985 earlier to the priority date of this patent may counted as the creativity of this patent. The chart 10 and chart 11 in the comparing document 2 as well as 30-33 lines of the third page in translated instruction published the blade rotor of wind wheel was stretched out from rotary-shaft to front part. This front part located on the distance between central axle of blade rotor and the plate form by the basis of blade foundation. The mentioned plate stretch out from hub, and distance to rotated axle with a considerable distance and extending forward in a bending way. The 142-143 of comparing document published the wind wheel blade was applied the manufacture technology of glass-fiber plastic material. It is a common sense that glass-fiber plastic materials belong to elastic material. So the necessary technology feature of this patent D and E had published by comparing document 1 and 2. Besides, comparing document 3,4 and 5 also published the partial necessary technology feature of this patent. In the same time, comparing to the above documents, the defined technology plan of claim of this patent were not produce a new and unexpected technology result, so the claim of this patent is not equip with creativity.