Ex Parte Reyes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 25, 201311941024 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOSE N. REYES, JR. and JOHN T. GROOME ____________________ Appeal 2011-005630 Application 11/941,024 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, NEIL T. POWELL, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005630 Application 11/941,024 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-8, 21-25, 29-36, 41-47, and 49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 21, and 41 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A power module assembly comprising: a reactor core immersed in a primary coolant; a reactor vessel housing the primary coolant and the reactor core, wherein an inner surface of the reactor vessel is exposed directly to the primary coolant during normal operation of the power module assembly; an internal dry containment vessel in direct contact with and completely submerged in liquid, wherein the containment vessel substantially surrounds the reactor vessel in a partial vacuum, wherein an outer surface of the reactor vessel is exposed directly to the partial vacuum during the normal operation of the power module assembly, wherein the containment vessel is designed to prohibit a release of the primary coolant out of the containment vessel, and wherein substantially all of the primary coolant contained in the containment vessel is housed in the reactor vessel during the normal operation of the power module assembly; and a vent configured to controllably release the primary coolant into the containment vessel as primarily steam during an over-pressurization event. Appeal 2011-005630 Application 11/941,024 3 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 21-24, 29-36, 41-47, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (APA)1 and Cachera (US 4,076,585; iss. Feb. 28, 1978); 2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over APA, Cachera, and Tominaga (US 5,087,408; iss. Feb. 11, 1992); and 3. Claims 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over APA, Cachera, and Gans (US 4,081,323; iss. Mar. 28, 1978). OPINION The Examiner finds that APA discloses each of the features recited in claim 1 except the reactor vessel containing all of the primary coolant and the containment vessel being dry and surrounding the reactor vessel in a partial vacuum during normal operation of the power module assembly. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner cites Cachera for these findings and reasons that it would have been obvious to modify APA accordingly in order to avoid contamination problems and accommodate the thermal expansion and contraction of the reactor vessel (explanation for keeping the containment vessel dry and housing all of the primary coolant in the reactor vessel during normal operation) and to facilitate excess internal pressure suppression, thermal insulation, and reducing heat loss from transfer through the space between the reactor and containment vessel (explanation for surrounding the reactor vessel in a partial vacuum). Ans. 5. 1 The Examiner cites to Appellants’ figure 1 and Spec. 2:3-5. Appeal 2011-005630 Application 11/941,024 4 APA discloses that the containment vessel 4 contains water (suppression pool 12) and explains that the water accommodates heat transfer from the water 10 in the reactor core 6. Spec., p. 2, ll. 12-14. The suppression pool water 12 provides cooling for the reactor core 6. The modifications proposed by the Examiner include replacing the suppression pool 12 in APA with a dry containment vessel 10 having a vacuum as disclosed from Cachera and additionally including the cooling system 9 from Cachera. Ans. 5, 24. Appellants argue that the Examiner is selecting features from different types of reactors (sodium cooled in Cachera and water cooled in APA) that are incompatible with one another. Reply Br. 6. Appellants explain that the modifications proposed by the Examiner replace a cooling system (suppression pool 12 from APA) with an insulating system (dry containment vessel 10 having a vacuum from Cachera) and argue that one skilled in the art would not replace a cooling system with an insulating system. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner attempts to address this argument by explaining that it is the combination of the dry containment vessel 10 having a vacuum and the cooling system 9 from Cachera that replaces the suppression pool 12 in APA. Ans. 24. The Examiner explains that the cooling system 9 provides heat removal and the insulation from the vacuum creates efficiency gains (i.e., increase in electrical output of the reactor). Id. Appellants argue that even with the Examiner’s proposed modifications including the cooling system 9 from Cachera, the vacuum chamber in the proposed modifications to APA would still insulate the reactor 6. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5. As seen in Figure 1 of Cachera, the cooling system 9 is defined around a periphery of the containment vessel 10. Appeal 2011-005630 Application 11/941,024 5 Appellants explain that because of the location of the cooling system 9 in Cachera, there would be no reasonable expectation of success that the Examiner’s proposed modifications to APA would further cool the reactor 6 in addition to the cooling already provided by the surrounding pool of water 16 in APA. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Even with the addition of the cooling system 9 from Cachera, an insulating layer (vacuum chamber) still exists between the cooling system 9 and the reactor in the Examiner’s proposed modifications to APA. The Examiner’s proposed modification to include the cooling system 9 from Cachera does not appear to contemplate the loss of reactor cooling in the modified APA resulting from the replacement of the suppression pool 12 with the vacuum chamber. Indeed, we have no evidence or technical explanation from the Examiner tending to show that Cachera’s vacuum containment in a sodium cooled reactor is known to be swappable for APA’s suppression pool containment in a light water cooled reactor in the simple manner alluded by the Examiner. The Examiner only points out that these structures were known. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence before us does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that one skilled in the art would replace the cooling system (suppression pool 12) from APA with an insulating vacuum chamber. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 33-36, 44, and 45 which depend from claim 1. Claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 1 and the stated bases for the rejections of claims 6 and 8 do not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 8. Appeal 2011-005630 Application 11/941,024 6 Similar to claim 1, claims 21 and 41 are also directed to power module assemblies and recite that the containment vessel is dry during normal operation of the reactor. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 21 and 41 include replacing the suppression pool 12 contained in the containment vessel 4 from APA with a dry interior (i.e., modifying APA with Cachera’s containment vessel 10), similar to the rejection of claim 1. Ans. 7-9, 12-13. The Examiner’s conclusions are similarly deficient for the reasons set forth above. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 41 or claims 22-24, 26-32, 42, 43, 46, 47, and 49 which depend from claim 21 or claim 41. Claim 25 depends from claim 21 and the stated basis for the rejection of claim 25 does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 21. We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 25. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-8, 21-25, 29-36, 41-47, and 49. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation