Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2018

13314519 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2018)

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.
13/314,519 12/08/2011 Bruce F. ALLEN NSD 2010-028 6394
26353 7590 02/16/2018
WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C
EXAMINER
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
MCGUE, FRANK J
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2018 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):
guerral @ wes tinghou se. com
spadacjc @ westinghouse.com
coldrerj @ westinghouse.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE F. ALLEN, GREGORY E. FALVO,
and BRIAN P. COOMBS
Appeal 2016-001646
Application 13/314,519
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1—5 and 10-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC. as the real-party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001646
Application 13/314,519
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to nuclear reactor control systems.
Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A nuclear reactor power generating system
having a nuclear reactor comprising:
a reactor vessel including a lower section and a
removable upper head having a horizontal span
closing off the lower section and forming a
pressure vessel;
a reactor core housed in the lower section and
comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies:
a control rod assembly, supported entirely
within the reactor vessel, including at least one
control rod that is driven into or out of a
corresponding one of the plurality of fuel
assemblies, a drive rod connected to the control
rod for driving the control rod into and out of the
corresponding fuel assembly and a drive
mechanism for activating the drive rod to move
along a linear path as it drives the control rod into
and out of the corresponding fuel assembly; and
wherein the drive mechanism comprises a
magnetic jack mechanism having a stationary
gripper coil, a moveable gripper coil, and a lift coil
and the stationary gripper coil, moveable gripper
and lift coils are wholly contained within the
reactor vessel and are surrounded by a coolant that
is circulated through the core, with the stationary
gripper coil, moveable gripper coil and lift coil
spaced from one another along the linear path with
an enclosed hollow space there between within
which a coolant can occupy.
2
Appeal 2016-001646
Application 13/314,519
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Lytle
Tessaro
King
Willems
Nishiguchi
Yoshida
US 3,264,502
US 5,009,834
US 5,307,384
US 5,513,229
US 2006/0126775 A1
US 2007/0222308 A1
Aug. 2, 1966
Apr. 23, 1991
Apr. 26, 1994
Apr. 30, 1996
Jun. 15, 2006
Sep. 27, 2007
The following rejections are before us for review:2
1. Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tessaro and King.
2. Claims 3—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tessaro, King, and Nishiguchi.
3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tessaro, King, and Lytle.
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tessaro, King, and Yoshida.
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tessaro, King, and Willems.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, and 10
over Tessaro and King
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Tessaro discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for the magnetic coils being “wholly contained” within the
2 The Examiner determines that Claims 6—9 contain allowable subject
matter. Final Action 12.
3
Appeal 2016-001646
Application 13/314,519
reactor vessel. Final Action 3^4. The Examiner relies on King as disclosing
magnetic coils with an enclosed hollow space which a coolant can occupy.
Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Tessaro by using the integral structure of King. Id. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
reduce the extent of items extending through the reactor vessel. Id.
Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing, among other things, that
King fails to disclose a control rod assembly supported “entirely” within the
reactor vessel. Appeal Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner directs our attention to Figure 2 of King.
Ans. 3. The Examiner states that control rod drive mechanisms operate
within the same pressure environment that exists within the reactor vessel.
Id.
The control rod drive mechanisms are housed within shaft
housing which are tubular extensions of the reactor pressure
vessel" . . . The language is clear that these control rod drive
mechanisms are either mounted within the reactor vessel above
the core or, alternatively, in tubular extensions of the pressure
vessel as such an extension is still part of the reactor vessel.
Id. at 3^4 (citing King, col. 1,11. 33—34.
In reply, Appellants point out that, while King’s control rod drive
mechanism is located within the pressure boundary of the control rod drive
rod housing, the electromagnetic coils are mounted outside of the drive
housing. Reply Br. 1.
King is directed to a segmented electromagnetic coil assembly for use
in a magnetic jack type of drive mechanism used to move control rods
within a nuclear reactor. King, Abstract. King discloses tubular housing
4
Appeal 2016-001646
Application 13/314,519
member 2 that is hermetically sealed into the nuclear reactor vessel. King,
col. 3,11. 22—36. King discloses a magnetic jack drive mechanism that uses
three electromagnetic coil assemblies to facilitate raising and lowering a
control rod drive shaft and, in turn, a control rod. Id. col. 3,11. 36-42. King
further discloses that the three electromagnetic coil assemblies are mounted
outside of tubular housing member 2. Id. col. 3,11. 42-44.
Claim 1 requires that a control rod assembly is supported “entirely”
within the reactor vessel. Claims App. The claimed “control rod assembly”
includes a control rod and a drive mechanism. Id. The claim further
requires that the “drive mechanism” comprises a magnetic jack mechanism
with coils that are “wholly contained” within the reactor vessel and
surrounded by coolant that is circulated through the core. Id.
Based on our review of the record, neither Tessaro nor King discloses
a control rod drive mechanism that is supported “entirely” within the reactor
vessel as required by claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner has not provided
sufficient factual findings or reasoning to support a conclusion that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to locate the
electromagnetic coils of a drive mechanism so as to be “wholly contained”
within the reactor vessel and surrounded by coolant as required by claim 1.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not sustain the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 10
Claims 2 and 10 depend from claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner’s
rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity identified above
with respect to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed
5
Appeal 2016-001646
Application 13/314,519
above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2
and 10.
Unpatentability of Claims 3—5 and 11—14
over Combinations based on Tessaro and King
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and are
rejected over Tessaro and King in combination with various additional
references. Final Action 5—11. The Examiner makes no additional factual
findings by which the additional references (Yoshida, Nishiguchi, Williams,
and Lytle) cure the deficiencies that we have noted above with respect to
Tessaro and King. Id. Consequently, we do not sustain the unpatentability
rejections of claims 3—5 and 11—14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—5 and 10—14 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6