11332058 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

Ex Parte Aleshin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 2013

11332058 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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. 11/332,058 01/13/2006 Yuriy Aleshin ARF2005-012 6458 26353 7590 08/01/2013 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC 1000 Westinghouse Drive Suite 141 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2894 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte YURIY ALESHIN, JAMES A. SPARROW and KEITH J. DRUDY ________________ Appeal 2011-007711 Application 11/332,058 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 3 decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13 and 15-18. The Examiner rejects 4 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC. The Appellants inform us that Toshiba Corporation; Shaw Group, Inc.; Kazatomprom; and IHI Corporation hold ownership interests in Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC. Appeal 2011-007711 Application 11/332,058 2 claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2010) as being 1 unpatentable over Hatfield (US 4,863,681, issued Sep. 5, 1989) and either 2 Fecteau (US 5,610,959, issued Mar. 11, 1997) or the Appellants’ Admitted 3 Prior Art (the “AAPA”) found in Figure 2 and paragraph [0005] of the 4 Appellants’ Specification. The Examiner also rejects claims 2, 9, 12 and 18 5 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatfield and Fecteau, alone or in 6 combination with the AAPA.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 7 (2010). 8 We REVERSE. 9 Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 recites, with italics added 10 for emphasis: 11 1. A fuel assembly for a pressurized 12 water nuclear reactor, the fuel assembly forming a 13 geometric array having a periphery, the fuel 14 assembly comprising: 15 a top nozzle; 16 a bottom nozzle disposed opposite and distal 17 from the top nozzle; 18 a plurality of fuel rods disposed intermediate 19 the top nozzle and the bottom nozzle; 20 a plurality of guide thimbles; 21 at least one instrumentation tube; 22 at least one structural support replacement 23 rod; 24 a plurality of grids that are structured and 25 arranged in a tandem array to support the fuel rods, 26 2 The Examiner in the Answer withdrew rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13 and 15-18 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2010) for failure to comply with the written description requirement; and under the second paragraph of § 112 for indefiniteness. (See Ans. 3). Appeal 2011-007711 Application 11/332,058 3 the guide thimbles, the at least one instrumentation 1 tube, and the at least one structural support 2 replacement rod in spatial relationship in the 3 geometric array such that the at least one structural 4 support rod does not engage adjacent fuel rods or 5 guide thimbles; 6 wherein the guide thimbles and the at least 7 one structural support replacement rod are 8 anchored to the grids; 9 wherein at least one of the at least one 10 structural support replacement rod is disposed at or 11 about the periphery of the geometric array in order 12 to provide enhanced structural stability to the fuel 13 assembly; and 14 wherein said at least one structural support 15 replacement rod is not connected to either of said 16 top nozzle or said bottom nozzle together or 17 individually. 18 Claim 11 recites a pressurized water nuclear reactor (“PWR”) having fuel 19 assemblies in which “the guide thimbles and the at least one structural 20 support replacement rod are anchored to the grids.” 21 Hatfield describes a fuel assembly 10 for a pressurized water nuclear 22 reactor (“PWR”). (Hatfield, col. 2, ll. 36-37). Hatfield’s fuel assembly 10 23 includes cell-defining spacer grids 18, 20, 22; guide thimbles 16; and fuel 24 rods 30. The spacer grids 18, 20, 22 are “secured” at intervals to the guide 25 thimbles 16. The fuel rods 30 are supported by arches 24 and opposing 26 springs 26 within the cells. (Hatfield, col. 2, ll. 42-49 and fig. 11). 27 Hatfield teaches that fuel assemblies for PWRs must be periodically 28 reconstituted by replacing fuel rods in the fuel assembly. Therefore, it was 29 known to replace fuel rods with specially fabricated replacement rods. 30 (Hatfield, col. 1, ll. 15-18 and 24-29). Hatfield teaches sliding the 31 Appeal 2011-007711 Application 11/332,058 4 replacement rods 40 through aligned cells in the spacer grids 18, 20, 22 1 when replacing fuel rods removed from the fuel assembly 10. (See Hatfield, 2 col. 3, ll. 43-47). 3 The Examiner correctly finds that the replacement rod 40, once fully 4 inserted, will be in a cell (or more accurately, within aligned cells) in the 5 spacer grids 18, 20, 22. (See Ans. 12; see also Hatfield, col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, 6 l. 4). The Appellants point out that, as a matter of common sense, the 7 replacement rods 40 will be supported in the cells by the same arches 24 and 8 opposing springs 26 used to support the fuel rods 30 that the replacement 9 rods 40 replace. (See App. Br. 17-18). 10 The Examiner finds that Hatfield describes “wherein the guide 11 thimbles and the at least one structural replacement rod are anchored (i.e., 12 firmly secured) to the grids through insertion in a cell (col. 1, l. 56 – col. 2, l. 13 8), said cell being firmly secured to grids 18, 20, and 22 (loc. cit.).” (Ans. 5; 14 see also id. at 14). The Examiner correctly finds that the ordinary meaning 15 of the term “anchored” is “firmly secured.” The Appellants do not formally 16 define the term “anchored” in their Specification. Neither do the Appellants 17 provide evidence that the term “anchored” has a specialized meaning within 18 the Appellants’ field of endeavor. 19 Nevertheless, the Specification states that the “structural support for 20 the fuel assembly is provided by the grids, the top nozzle, and the bottom 21 nozzle, which are anchored to the guide thimbles. Structural support is also 22 provided by the grid springs which offer some lateral stability to the fuel 23 rods.” (Spec., para. [0005] (as amended March 29, 2007)). The distinction 24 that this passage draws between the structural support provided by the 25 anchoring of the grids to the guide thimbles and the structural support 26 Appeal 2011-007711 Application 11/332,058 5 provided by the grid springs to the fuel rods indicates that neither the fuel 1 rods, nor any replacement rods replacing the fuel rods, are “anchored” or 2 firmly secured to the grids in the same sense that the grids are anchored to 3 the guide thimbles.3 Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Hatfield’s 4 replacement rods 40 are “anchored” to the grids 18, 20, 22 in the same firm 5 sense in which the term “anchored” is used in the Specification and the 6 claims on appeal. 7 The Examiner cites both the AAPA and Fecteau as teaching an 8 instrumentation tube supported by the grids of a fuel assembly. (See Ans. 7-9 8). The Examiner also cites Fecteau as teaching the use of replacement rods 10 fabricated from zirconium alloy. (Ans. 10). These teachings do not remedy 11 the deficiencies in the disclosure of Hatfield. We do not sustain the rejection 12 of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 13 and 15-17 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 13 over Hatfield and either Fecteau or the AAPA. Neither do we sustain the 14 rejection of claims 2, 9, 12 and 18 as being unpatentable over Hatfield and 15 Fecteau, alone or in combination with the AAPA. 16 17 DECISION 18 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-19 13 and 15-18. 20 REVERSED 21 Klh 22 3 The term “anchored” also appears in paragraph [0040] of the Specification, as amended on August 5, 2009. The Examiner does not articulate any reasonable basis in either paragraph [0005], as amended, or paragraph [0040], as amended, for interpreting the term “anchored” sufficiently broadly to encompass the relationship between the replacement rods 40 and the grids 18, 20, 22 described by Hatfield.