Ex Parte Rudolph et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

11928648 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/928,648 10/30/2007 Matthias Rudolph MOH-P040098 7651
24131 7590 05/30/2012
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MATTHIAS RUDOLPH,
HANS-PETER FUCHS, and ERHARD FRIEDRICH
____________________

Appeal 2010-006249
Application 11/928,648
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, CHARLES N. GREENHUT,
and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Matthias Rudolph et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-9. An oral hearing was held on May
3, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-006249
Application 11/928,648

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A fuel element for a nuclear reactor, comprising:
a fuel rod bundle, at least one spacer formed with cells
that are bounded by at least one web portion consisting of a first
material, and a plurality of guide tubes each passing through a
respective cell and being axially fixed to said cell and
consisting of a second material having a different thermal
expansion from the first material;
an assembly for connecting a respective said guide tube
and said spacer, said assembly including:
first projections directly or indirectly fixed to said guide
tube in a first axial position thereof and second projections
directly or indirectly fixed to said guide tube in a second axial
position thereof; and
said first and second projections each engaging in a
respective aperture formed in a respective said web portion, so
as to form an axially effective undercut;
wherein, on occasion of a higher degree of thermal
expansion of said guide tube than said web portion, those sides
of said projections facing away from one another cooperate in
each case with an abutment region of said apertures and, on
occasion of a higher degree of thermal expansion of said web
portion than said guide tube, those sides of said projections
facing one another cooperate in each case with an abutment
region of said apertures; and
wherein said abutment region of said apertures is formed
with at least one oblique edge running obliquely with respect to
a longitudinal direction of said spacer or of said guide tube and,
together with a projection, forming a push-and-wedge
connection, and said abutment regions corresponding to said
first projections and said abutment regions corresponding to
said second projections being disposed spaced apart from one
another in an axial direction of said guide tube.
Appeal 2010-006249
Application 11/928,648

3

THE REJECTIONS
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bezold (US 4,120,751, iss. Oct. 17, 1978; “Bezold ‘751”),
Bezold (US 4,124,433, iss. Nov. 7, 1978; “Bezold ‘433”); Flora (US
4,081,324, iss. Mar. 28, 1978), and Wakana (JP 01297594, pub. Nov. 30,
1989); and
2. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bezold ‘751, Bezold ‘433, Flora, Wakana, and Kadono
(US 5,147,600, iss. Sep. 15, 1992).

OPINION
Independent claim 1 contains specific recitations regarding the
configuration of and relationship between the projections and abutment
regions of the apertures. The Examiner finds that several of these features
are missing from the primary reference, Bezold ‘751. Ans. 4-5. The
Examiner further finds that each of Bezold ‘433, Flora, and Wakana disclose
an aspect of the claimed invention. Id. However, even were we to agree
with the Examiner’s findings regarding these individual references, we
determine that the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how all of
these isolated features would be combined to yield the claimed invention and
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so.
For example, it is not readily apparent how the Examiner proposes to modify
the device of Bezold ‘751 with Flora’s surface found to have the oblique
edge (seemingly, the projection extending radially inwardly) so as to result
Appeal 2010-006249
Application 11/928,648

4
in an oblique-edged aperture and a projection that together form a push-and-
wedge connection as called for in claim 1. See Ans. 5, 16-17; App. Br. 13-
14.
As for the rejection of dependent claims 5-8, the Examiner’s reliance
on Kadono and corresponding articulation of the rejection do not cure the
underlying deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Ans. 8-11.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls