Ex Parte Friedrich et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201611811439 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111811,439 06/08/2007 24131 7590 04/01/2016 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PO BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Erhard Friedrich 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. MOH-P040103 6459 EXAMINER BURKE, SEAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2016 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): boxoa@patentusa.com docket@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERHARD FRIEDRICH, HANS-JOACHIM LIPPERT, and ROLAND RINK Appeal2013-007533 Application 11/811,439 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Erhard Friedrich et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2013-007533 Application 11/811,439 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 1 and 10 are pending. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter with key limitations italicized. A fuel assembly for a boiling water reactor, the fuel assembly comprising: a filter plate having an upper side; a fuel assembly base having an upper side with a top and closed at said top by said filter plate disposed above said fuel assembly base; a separate holding part fastened to said filter plate on said upper side of said filter plate and thereby connected to said upper side of said fuel assembly base, said separate holding part including a plurality of latch assemblies projecting away from said filter plate; a fuel assembly head; a bundle of fuel rods, including long fuel rods and medium-length fuel rods, extending away from said fuel assembly base and disposed betv,reen said fhel assembly base and said fuel assembly head, a plurality of said medium-length fuel rods each being fixed axially on a respective one of said latch assemblies, each of said plurality of said medium-length fuel rods being held entirely above said filter plate by said respective latching assembly; and a water channel disposed inside of said bundle of fuel rods. Br. 18-19. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1--4, 9-11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matzner (US 5,481,578, iss. Jan. 2, 1996) and Elkins '888 (US 5,859,888, iss. Jan. 12, 1999). Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal2013-007533 Application 11/811,439 IL Claims 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matzner, Elkins '888, and Piepers (US 3,968,008, iss. July 6, 197 6). Final Act. 7. III. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matzner, Elkins '888, Piepers, and Elkins '758 (US 6,690,758 Bl, iss. Feb. 10, 2004). Final Act. 10. OPINION Rejection I Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, the Examiner finds that Matzner discloses, inter alia, a "separate holding part 30/32 including a plurality of latch assemblies 30 projecting away from" the filter plate, and each fuel rod 12 being held entirely above the filter plate 42/36 by being fixed axially on a respective latching assembly 30. Ans. 6 (citing Matzner, Fig. 3; col. 3, 11. 52-55; col. 5, 11. 43--44), 8 (citing Matzner, Fig. 3; col. 5, 11. 43--44). Appellants argue that Matzner's boss 30 is not a latch assembly. Br. 8. According to Appellants, a latch is defined as, and would be understood by one skilled in the art as, "a device that holds something in place by entering a notch or cavity." Br. 11 (citing Webster's Third New International Dictionary). Appellants also cite the following definition for the term "latch": any of various devices in which mating mechanical parts engage to fasten but usually not to lock something: a: a fastener (as for a door) consisting essentially of a pivoted bar that falls into a notch b: a fastener (as for a door) in which a spring slides a bolt into a hole. 3 Appeal2013-007533 Application 11/811,439 Br. 11-12 (citing Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary). According to Appellants, Matzner' s threaded connection does not meet either definition of a fastener set forth above. Id. at 12. The Examiner responds by adopting Appellants' latch definition of as "a device that holds something in place by entering a notch or cavity," and then determines that the claim term "latch assembly" is broader than the term latch, concluding that "the bosses of Matzner clearly read on the latch assembly of the independent claims." Ans. 14--15. Appellants have the better argument. Appellants' proffered definition of the term "latch" is consistent with its use in the Specification (see Spec. 9, Figs. 2, 5, 6). Although "latch assembly" may indeed be construed more broadly than the term "latch," the Examiner does not explain how Matzner's boss meets the definition of a latch assembly- nor does the Examiner explain how Matzner's fuel rod plugs (described as being threadably received within the grid bosses) is indicative of any type of "latch assembly." Ans. 15; see also Matzner col. 4, 11. 2--4. The Examiner provides no reason why the term "latch assembly" should be read as to encompass Matzner' s bosses. The rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 was based on an erroneous finding that Matzner discloses the claimed latch assemblies. Claims 2--4, 9, and 15 depend from claim 1. Claims 11 and 16 depend from claim 10. We therefore do not sustain Rejection I. Rejections II and III Claims 5-8 depend from claim 1, and claims 12-14 depend from claim 10. The Examiner does not make any findings that cure the deficiencies of Matzner. We therefore do not sustain Rejections II and III for the reasons set forth above regarding Rejection I. 4 Appeal2013-007533 Application 11/811,439 DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1--4, 9-11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matzner and Elkins '888. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matzner, Elkins '888, and Piepers. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matzner, Elkins '888, Piepers, and Elkins '758. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation