Ex Parte Ahlfeld et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2016

12082077 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/082,077 04/08/2008
123334 7590 10/26/2016
TerraPower, LLC
330 120th Ave. NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles E. Ahlfeld
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.
0707-032-003-000000 6883
EXAMINER
O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2016 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):
docketing@terrapower.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES E. AHLFELD,
JOHN ROGERS GILLELAND, RODERICK A. HYDE,
MURIEL Y. ISHIKAWA, DAVID G. McALEES,
NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD, CLARENCE T. TEGREENE,
THOMAS ALLAN WEA VER, CHARLES WHITMER, and
LOWELL L. WOOD JR
Appeal2015-001098
Application 12/082,077
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 213-215, 220, 222, 226, 228, 237, 239, 240, 243, 272,
and 273. App. Br. 45--48, 50, 51, Claims App. Claims 1-212, 221, 223-
225, 229-236, 249, and 256-266 have been canceled. App. Br. 45--47, 49,
50, Claims App. Claims 216-219, 227, 238, 241, 242, 244--248, 250-255,
Appeal2015-001098
Application 12/082,077
and 267-271 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 45-50, Claims App. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to nuclear reactor fuel
assemblies and more particularly relates to a nuclear fission reactor fuel
assembly adapted to permit expansion of the nuclear fuel contained therein."
Spec. 1. 1 Independent claim 213 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below:
213. A method of operating a nuclear fission reactor fuel
assembly, comprising the step of disposing an enclosure in a
nuclear reactor vessel, said enclosure sealingly enclosing a
nuclear fuel foam defining a plurality of interconnected open-cell
voids within the nuclear fuel foam.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Justheim2
Benson
us 3,028,330
us 3,322,644
Apr. 3, 1962
May 30, 1967
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 213, 214, 220, 222, 226, 228, 237, 239, 240, 243, and 272 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Benson.
1 Appellants' Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering,
and accordingly, reference will only be made to the page number.
2 The Justheim reference is repeatedly referred to as the Huntington
reference in the Final Action, Appeal Brief and Examiner's Answer.
Huntington is the second listed inventor in the Justheim reference.
Therefore, where discussion of "Huntington" is encountered in the record,
the Examiner and Appellants are in actuality referring to the Justheim
reference. Appellants correctly refer to the Justheim reference in the Reply
Brief.
2
Appeal2015-001098
Application 12/082,077
Claims 215 and 273 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benson and Justheim.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 213, 214, 220, 222, 226, 228, 237, 239, 240, 243 and
272 as anticipated by Benson
Each independent claim (claims 213 and 272) recites a method of
operating a nuclear fission reactor fuel assembly. App. Br. 45, 50, Claims
App. Claims 213 and 272 further recite the limitation of a fuel foam
"defining a plurality of interconnected open-cell voids within" the fuel foam.
App. Br. 45, 50, Claims App. Appellants' Specification provides the
following definition: "the terminology 'open-cell voids' means that each
void is typically connected to one or more [of its] neighbors, permitting gas,
liquid, or fluid to directly travel between [the] voids []." Spec. 10; see also
id. at Fig. 5.
The Examiner relies on Benson for disclosing nuclear fuel foam 12
defining interconnected open-cell voids 22. Final Act. 4--7; see also Ans. 3;
Benson, Figs. 1-3. Benson describes reference numerals 12 and 22 as
follows:
As shown in FIGURES 2 and 3, a core sub-element 12 has
essentially a disc form with the upper and lower surfaces
respectively 12A, 12B dished or curved so that the centers are
closer to each other than the outer edges. A hole 20 is made
through the center of the core sub-element.
Benson, col. 2 :41--46 (emphasis omitted).
Each core sub-element [12] has randomly dispersed over
the surface thereof a plurality of small holes 22 or micropores
which are formed during fabrication. The core sub-elements [12]
are stacked one on top of another so that their center openings 20
3
Appeal2015-001098
Application 12/082,077
form a continuous passage from the top to the bottom of the core
element 10. The edges of adjacent sub-elements [12] are in
contact with one another and fuse with heat to seal and define a
small chamber between sub-elements. The small micropore
openings 22 open into the dished regions or chambers between
the core sub-element [12] and which can communicate with the
center opening 20 forming a passage through the core element
10.
Benson, col. 2:52---63 (emphasis omitted).
As argued by Appellants: "the cited structure of Benson, specifically
reference numbers 12 and 22, have nothing to do with 'a nuclear fuel foam
defining a plurality of interconnected open-cell voids within the nuclear fuel
foam."' App. Br. 29. Appellants further contend:
The passage ways defined by the Benson system are
formed via mechanical positioning of sub-elements and the
structuring of a "center opening 20" and the "dished regions or
chambers" between sub-elements, which is shown in Figures 1-
3 of Benson.
In contrast, the "plurality of interconnected open-cell
voids" of Appellants' Claim 213 are defined within the "nuclear
fuel foam" and are not formed by mechanically aligning and
stacking "sub-elements" and/or forming "dished regions or
chambers."
App. Br. 30; see also App. Br. 23-24.
Appellants further note:
[T]he holes 22 within any single core subelement 12 [of Benson]
are not interconnected and the volatile fission products
generated by a subelement 12 are transported out of the
subelement 12 by diffusing out of the holes 22 - not transported
between or among the holes 22 in the fuel [subelement] 12.
Reply Br. 5.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Benson's micropores or holes
22 are not "interconnected open-cell voids" as claimed in that there is no
4
Appeal2015-001098
Application 12/082,077
indication that they are connected to their neighbors, thereby permitting gas,
liquid, or fluid to directly travel between the voids. See Spec. 10. In
contrast, Benson's micropores or holes 22 diffuse fission products to the
central opening 20 of the core sub-elements 12 where the fission products
are removed by a purge gas flowing through the opening 20. See Benson,
2:52-3:3. That is, the micropores or holes 22 communicate with the dished
areas and central opening 20 of core sub-elements 12, but not with each
other.
Accordingly, based on the record presented, and for the foregoing
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 213, 214, 220,
222, 226, 228, 237, 239, 240, 243, and 272 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Benson.
The rejection of claims 215 and 273
as unpatentable over Benson and Justheim
As for dependent claim 215 (which depends from claim 213 and
therefore incorporates all of the limitations thereof) and independent claim
273, they stand rejected as being unpatentable over Benson and Justheim.
Final Act. 7. Claim 273, like claim 213 discussed supra, also includes the
limitation of a fuel foam "defining a plurality of interconnected open-cell
voids within" the fuel foam. As noted above, Benson lacks interconnected
open-cell voids and Justheim fails to cure this deficiency in the Benson
reference. Appellants correctly note the Justheim reference and the
Examiner's reliance thereon for disclosing "a plurality of spatially
distributed void cells (12)." Final Act. 7; see also Appeal Br. 34.
Appellant also notes that the cells 12 of Justheim et al. are all
closed cells. See U.S. Patent No. 3,028,330 [Justheim], FIGs. 1
and 3-7 (reference no. 12). Also, none of the cells 12 of Justheim
5
Appeal2015-001098
Application 12/082,077
et al. are interconnected. Thus, the unconnected closed cells 12
of Justheim et al. are not interconnected open-cell voids.
That is, Justheim et al. teaches a plurality of unconnected
closed cell voids, each individual unconnected closed cell
containing an individual fragment of fissionable material.
Reply Br. 8.
Hence, Justheim teaches closed, unconnected cells 12 in matrix 10,
which cells contain fragments of fissionable material. Neither Benson nor
Justheim discloses a nuclear fuel foam defining a plurality of interconnected
open-cell voids within the nuclear fuel foam as called for in dependent claim
215 and independent claim 273.
Accordingly, based on the record presented, and for the foregoing
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 215 and 273
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Benson and Justheim.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 213-215, 220, 222, 226, 228,
237, 239, 240, 243, 272, and 273 are reversed.
REVERSED
6