2,本專利權(quán)利要求2的附加技術(shù)特征為:其中該葉片彎曲造成葉片前端的向前布置,其幅度與葉片根部的半徑基本相同.在權(quán)利要求1不具備創(chuàng)造性的情況下,權(quán)利要求2限定的技術(shù)方案不能產(chǎn)生新的,有益的技術(shù)效果,因而無疑也不具備創(chuàng)造性.

2. The attached technology feature of claim 2 in this patent as following: the bend result the forward layout of blade. The range and the radius of blade foundation are basically equal. Under this condition that claim 1 is not equipped with the creativity, the defined technology plan of claim 2 of this patent were not produce a new and beneficial technology result. So it was not equipped with creativity undoubtedly.

二,本專利權(quán)利要求書得不到說明書的支持

2. Claim of this patent has no instruction support

本專利權(quán)利要求1中的必要技術(shù)特征”葉片轉(zhuǎn)子包括三個徑向伸出的葉片的輪轂”, “葉片轉(zhuǎn)子的直徑大體上相當(dāng)于塔的高度,致使在葉片轉(zhuǎn)子旋轉(zhuǎn)期間,每個葉片將在一個沿著該塔向下延伸的下部位置與一個基本上從該塔的頂部向上伸出的上部位置之間運(yùn)動”,”葉片轉(zhuǎn)子上的葉片從轉(zhuǎn)子輪轂處向外延伸到前端區(qū)”, “葉片為彈性類型,其在所述平面內(nèi)從輪轂向外延伸” 等已超出說明書記載的內(nèi)容, 因此, 本專利權(quán)利要求1得不到說明書的支持.

The necessary technology feature of claim 1 in this patent “blade rotors include three hub of rotor in radial orientation”, “the diameter of blade rotor was estimated as the height as tower, so each rotor may move between the lower position extending downward from tower and basically upper position extending upward form the top of tower”, “the blade of blade rotor extending from front part of hub” and “blades belong to elastic type, the mentioned plate extending from hub to outside”, etc. had beyond the content of instruction. So claim of this patent has no instruction support.

綜上所述,由于本專利權(quán)利要求1,2相對于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)不具備創(chuàng)造性,并且本專利權(quán)利要求書沒有以說明書為依據(jù),說明要求專利保護(hù)的范圍. 因此,應(yīng)當(dāng)依法宣告該專利權(quán)無效.

To sum up, the claim1, 2 of this patent compare to the present technology were no equipped with creativity, and the claim were not illustrated the protecting scope of patent in accordance with the instruction. So it is necessary to announce the invalidation of this in accordance with the law.

意見陳述書

Opinion statement

根據(jù)無效請求人于2005年5月16日提交的宣告專利權(quán)無效意見陳述,本申請人現(xiàn)陳述意見如下:

In accordance with the invalidation opinion statement of claimed patent submit by invalidation applicant on 16^th may 2005, the opinion statement of this applicant as follows:

1. 無效請求人已將本專利的權(quán)利要求1劃分為下面的特征:(A)一種迎風(fēng)轉(zhuǎn)動體類型和具有一個塔(2)類型的風(fēng)車,該塔用來可轉(zhuǎn)動地支承固定已大體水平伸出的攜帶一葉片轉(zhuǎn)子的主軸;(B)葉片轉(zhuǎn)子包括有三個徑向伸出的葉片(10)的輪轂(8);(C)該風(fēng)車只有一個這種葉片轉(zhuǎn)子,其直徑大體上相當(dāng)于塔(2)的高度,致使在塔葉片轉(zhuǎn)子旋轉(zhuǎn)期間,每個葉片(10)將在一個沿著該塔(2)向下延伸的下部位置與一個基本上從該塔的頂部向上伸出的上部位置之間運(yùn)動;(D)其中葉片轉(zhuǎn)子上的葉片從轉(zhuǎn)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)根部形成的平面前面的一定距離上;(E)該葉片(10)為彈性類型,其在所述平面內(nèi)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.

The invalidation applicant has divided the claim1 as following features: (A) one windmill with a rotor type and one windmill with a tower type (2). This tower may rotationally support main shaft with one blade rotor extending horizontally; (B) blade rotors include three hub (8) of rotor (10) in radial orientation the hub of blade rotor may extend to the front side, and this section is located in the central axis of blade rotor (10); (C) only this wind wheel has the blade of this type, the diameter of blade rotor was estimated as the height as tower (2), so each rotor (10)may move between the lower position extending downward from tower and basically upper position extending upward form the top of tower (2); (D) the blade rotor of wind wheel was stretched out from rotary-shaft to front part. This front part located on the distance between central axles of blade rotor (10) and the plate form by the basis of blade foundation. (E) The blade rotors belong to elastic materials, and continue to extend from the plate of blade rotor hub (8), distant from the hub (8) with a considerable distance and at least along the 1/3 part of blade extending forward in a bending mode.