Ex Parte Bass et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13613281 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/613,281 09/13/2012
33727 7590 04/03/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JohnR. BASS
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.
24SE257840 5139
EXAMINER
GARNER, LILY CRABTREE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN R. BASS and ROBERT J. GINSBERG
Appeal2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
John R. Bass and Robert J. Ginsberg (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C.
1 The Examiner objected to the Specification and claims 7 and 13 for
"informalities." See Final Office Action 7 (hereinafter "Final Act.") (dated
Nov. 14, 2014). Appellants correctly note that "these objections were
overcome by the claim amendments and the amendments to the
[S]pecification which were included in the January 13, 2015 After-Final
Response, the Advisory Action did indicate that the January 13, 2015 After-
Final Response was entered." Appeal Br. 11 (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed
May 15, 2015); see also Advisory Action 1 (hereinafter "Adv. Act.") (dated
Feb. 11, 2015); id. at 2 ("[T]he amendments clear the claim 7 and 13
objections on the record.").
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
§ 103(a): (1) claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, and 11-15 as unpatentable over Aburomia
(US 5,426,681, issued June 20, 1995) and Eckardt (US 2012/0051488 Al,
published Mar. 1, 2012); and (2) claims 3 and 10 as unpatentable over
Aburomia, Eckardt, and Jain (US 2012/0076255 Al, published Mar. 29,
2012). Claim 5 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates generally to "nuclear reactors, and
more particularly to an alternate reactor pressure vessel (RPV) energy
removal path." Spec. i-f 1, Fig. 2. Claims 1 and 8 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An alternate reactor pressure vessel (RPV) energy removal
system, comprising:
a steam extraction line, fluidly connected to a RPV and a
heat sink, the heat sink being located outside of primary
containment; and
a first and a second manually operated containment
isolation valve in the steam extraction line, the first containment
isolation valve being located within the primary containment, the
second containment isolation valve being located outside of the
primary containment,
wherein no external electrical power is required to operate
the system.
2
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Aburomia and Eckardt
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 11-15
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of independent claim 8 or
dependent claims 4, 6, 7, and 11-15 separate from those presented for
independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6-10. We select claim 1 as the
representative claim, and claims 4, 6-8, and 11-15 stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address claims 2 and 9 separately below.
Appellants contend that contrary to the Examiner's findings, both of
the systems of Aburomia and Eckardt require electrical power and therefore
do not teach or suggest "wherein no external electrical power is required to
operate the system," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellants argue Aburomia's two "isolation valves," which the Examiner
cites as the "first and second manually operated containment isolation
valves" of claim 1, are controlled remotely and require electrical power to
operate. Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellants contend that "the 'isolation
valves' [of Aburomia] would necessarily need to be power operated valves"
and "would necessarily be 'fail-open' valves that can remain open during a
loss of plant power." Reply Br. 62; see also Appeal Br. 7-9.
As an initial matter, Appellants do not identify record evidence
supporting the contention that "the 'isolation valves' [of Aburomia] are
electrically powered" such that they "are controlled remotely from an
electrically powered actuator control panel that is located outside of primary
containment." Appeal Br. 7; See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
2 Reply Brief (hereinafter "Reply Br.") (filed Nov. 13, 2015).
3
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
( CCP A 197 4) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence."). To the contrary, Appellants state that "an explicit, detailed
discussion of the operation of the 'isolation valves' (bracketing
RL V 50, and relied upon by the Examiner) is not disclosed in Aburomia"
and that Appellants are "surmising how the 'isolation valves' [of Aburomia]
would necessarily have to operate in order to effectively depressurize the
main steam line 28 in an overpressurization scenario that involves a loss of
plant power scenario." Reply Br. 5; see also Ans. 20. 3
Appellants acknowledge that RL V 50 is "explicitly described in the
text of Aburomia as being manually operated." Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis
added); see also Final Act. 5; Aburomia 7:45. Moreover, although
Aburomia does not explicitly disclose that the two "isolation valves"
bracketing release valve (RL V) 50 are manually operated, Aburomia does
explicitly disclose that "[ o Jn each injection line there is a locked-open,
manually operated isolation maintenance valve 58 located near the vessel
nozzle and another such valve located near the water source." Aburomia
5:7-10 (emphasis added), Figs. 1, 2. Given that the release valve (i.e.,
(RL V) 50), which is bracketed by the two "isolation valves," is explicitly
disclosed as being "manually operated" and that an isolation valve (i.e.,
isolation maintenance valve 58) is explicitly disclosed as being "manually
operated," a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding
that the two "isolation valves" bracketing release valve (RL V) 50 of
Aburomia are "manually operated" isolation valves. See Final Act. 8; see
3 Examiner's Answer (hereinafter "Ans.") (dated Oct. 9, 2015).
4
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
also Ans. 3. Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or argument
to the contrary.
Appellants contend that Aburomia fails to disclose "no external
electrical power is required to operate the system," as recited in claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 7-9; see also Reply Br. 2---6. In particular, Appellants contend
that "the 'isolation valves' [of Aburomia are] power operated." See Appeal
Br. 7-9; see also Reply Br. 2-6. As discussed above, these arguments are
not persuasive. Appellants further contend that Aburomia "describes the
disclosed safety systems as being 'an optimum combination of active and
passive safety systems,' thereby clarifying that portions of the disclosed
systems of Aburomia do include 'active' components that require electrical
power." Reply Br. 4. We disagree with Appellants' position for the
following reasons.
First, we do not understand Aburomia's active components to require
electrical power. Rather, Aburomia discloses that "[ t ]he active systems
include the traditional high-pressure and low-pressure safety systems that
[can] derive their power source from ... reactor steam." Aburomia 2:11-13
(emphasis added); see also id. at 4:5-8 ("Division I of the active system
further includes a reactor heat vent and level control (RHVLC) which
comprises a high-pressure pump 18 which is powered by the steam turbine
52.") (emphasis added).
Second, we understand from Aburomia's disclosure that the
components of Aburomia's passive system do not require electrical power.
The Examiner correctly notes that Aburomia discloses that "[t]otally passive
safety systems" "eliminat[ e] the need for AC power." See Ans. 19-20
(citing Aburomia 1 :35--40).
5
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
Third, Aburomia's RL V 50, and the isolation valves bracketing this
component, are part of Aburomia's passive system. Aburomia "combines
active and passive systems in a single design," but Aburomia describes its
system as having separate divisions, with three active divisions and "a
passive fourth division." Aburomia 1 :55---65; see also Reply Br. 5
("Aburomia explicitly states that a balance between passive and active
components makes for an optimal safety system."). As cited by the
Examiner (see Ans. 19), Aburomia explains that the passive division (the
reactor heat removal condenser RHR-CND) is used in conjunction with
RL Vs "to provide backup depressurization of the RPV and backup heat
removal and inventory control for events such as station blackout and reactor
isolation." Aburomia 2:53-59. Further, Aburomia describes the "passive
division" as including the RHR-CND and the RL Vs connecting the RHR-
CND to the RPV (Aburomia 2: 17-27), further explaining that"[ w ]hen
release valve 50 is opened, the difference between the pressure in RPV 2 and
the pressure in the associated [long term gravity-driven cooling system]
GDCS-LT tank 26 forces the steam flow from the RPV to the RHR-CND"
(Aburomia 7: 19-22). We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not understand Aburomia's isolation valves bracketing
RL V 50 to require electrical power to operate when they are part of a
passive system intended to operate during a station blackout, when no
electrical power is available. See Ans. 19. Based on the foregoing reasons,
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that
Aburomia discloses that "no external electrical power is required to operate
the system." See Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 19-20.
6
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
Appellants present additional arguments that Eckardt fails to disclose
"manually operated valves" and "wherein no external electrical power is
required to operate the system," as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-9;
see also Reply Br. 6-8. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Eckardt
merely "to show that it was known to have an isolation valve 'located
outside of the primary containment."' See Ans. 20; see also Final Act. 8
("Aburomia does not disclose that one of the isolation valves in the steam
extraction line is locat[ ed] outside of the primary containment."); id. at 9-11.
As such, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Aburomia and Eckardt. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Aburomia and Eckardt. We further sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 6-8, and 11-15, which fall with claim 1.
Claims 2 and 9
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claim 9
separate from those presented for independent claim 8 or dependent claim 2.
See Appeal Br. 10. We select claim 2 as the representative claim, and claim
9 stands or falls with claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that "the 'isolation valves' of Aburomia are power
operated I actuated, for at least the reasons argued [for claim 1]. As such,
the 'isolation valves' are not actuated via a pressure control line that is
controlled by a pressurized gas source." Appeal Br. 9. We do not find this
argument persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
7
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
Appellants further contend that:
[A Jn actuation of the 'isolation valves' via an over-pressurization
of a service fluid would necessarily cause the valve to
automatically open (as the valves would be required to react,
almost instantaneously, to an over-pressurization scenario). As
such, assuming that the 'isolation valves' are automatically
opened due to an over-pressurization scenario, these valves
cannot be reasonably interpreted as being "manually" opened I
closed valves, as recited in claim 2.
Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 8-11.
As an initial matter, Appellants do not provide record evidence to
support the contention that "the service fluid in the steam extraction line
only opens RL V 50, but not the 'isolation valves' bracketing RL V 50" or
that the "service fluid line" cited by Appellants is not a "pressure control
line." See Appeal Br. 9-10; In re Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1405. Further, we
agree with the Examiner's reading of Aburomia that "Aburomia does not
describe, or even allude to, the presence of a 'service line' or a 'service fluid
line' or a 'service fluid' but instead provides ... support that the line in
question provides pressure control to the RPV." See Ans. 21 (citing
Aburomia Abstract; 2:54--58; 7:19-27; 8:15-16). Appellants do not provide
persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary.
Relevant to Appellants' arguments regarding "automatically" and
"manually" opened valves, Appellants' Specification discloses that:
[G]as source 38 may be used by plant personnel to remotely
operate the manually operated containment isolation valves 36
without exposing personnel to the RPV 1 or primary containment
7 (in the case of a serious plant accident). Because the
containment isolation valves 36 may be opened via the force of
the pressurized gas source 38, no external electrical power is
necessary to operate the system 40.
8
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
Spec. i-f 17 (emphasis added).
For claims 2 and 9, the Examiner finds that
Aburomia also teaches (Fig. 1) the at least one pressurized gas
source (2) connected to the first and second containment
isolation valves (first and second valves, each an "isolation
valve" [see Fig. 1, legend], located on either side of labelled
valve 50 in Fig. 1) via a pressure control line (line with three
consecutive valves branching upward from line 28 and into
condenser pool), the at least one pressurized gas source being
configured to produce pressurized gas to manually open and
close the first and second containment isolation valves ("When
release valve 50 is opened, the difference between the pressure
in RPV 2 and the pressure in the associated GDCS-L T tank 26
forces the steam flow from the RPV to the RHR-CND," col. 7,
11. 19--22).
Final Act. 11, 17-18.
As discussed above, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that the two "isolation valves" bracketing release valve
(RL V) 50 of Aburomia are "manually operated" isolation valves. See Final
Act. 8; see also Ans. 3; Aburomia 5:8-9, 7:45. Upon review of Appellants'
and Aburomia's disclosures, we understand the Examiner's position to be
that in the event of over-pressurization, the at least one pressurized gas
source 2 (RPV) of Aburomia is configured to produce pressurized gas to
manually open and close the two "isolation valves" bracketing release valve
(RL V) 50 of Aburomia (i.e., the first and second containment isolation
valves (RHR-CND)). Stated differently, because the two "isolation valves"
bracketing release valve (RL V) 50 of Aburomia may be opened via the force
of the pressurized gas source 2, no external electrical power is necessary to
9
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
operate Aburomia's system. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence
or argument apprising us of Examiner error.
In an alternate approach for claims 2 and 9, the Examiner finds that
Eckardt teaches (Fig. 1) the at least one pressurized gas source
( 6) connected to the first and second containment isolation valves
(30, 30) via a pressure control line (22), the at least one
pressurized gas source being configured to produce pressurized
gas to manually open and close the first and second containment
isolation valves ("In order to initiate the pressure-relief process
in the event of an accident with pressure increase in the internal
space 6, the respective shut-off valve 30 is opened, which
preferably takes place automatically and without the use of
external energy, for example by way of a pressure-dependent
trigger device," i-f 84).
Final Act. 12, 18 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 20.
Similar to that discussed above with Aburomia, we understand the
Examiner's position to be that in the event of over-pressurization, the at least
one pressurized gas source 6 of Eckardt is configured to produce pressurized
gas to manually open and close first and second containment isolation valves
(30, 30), for example via a pressure-dependent trigger device. Stated
differently, because first and second containment isolation valves (30, 30) of
Eckardt may be opened via the force of pressurized gas source 6, no external
electrical power is necessary to operate Eckardt's system. Appellants do not
provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Aburomia and Eckardt. We further
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9, which falls with claim 2.
10
Appeal 2016-001393
Application 13/613,281
Obviousness over Aburomia, Eckardt, and Jain
Claims 3 and 10
Appellants contend that "Jain does not remedy the deficiencies of
Aburomia in view of Eckardt, with regard to independent claim[ s] 1 and 8"
and "[ d]ue at least to the dependence of [claims 3 and 1 OJ on respective
claims 1 and 8, Appellant[ s] assert[] that the remaining claims are also
patentable." See Appeal Br. 10-11.
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 8 as unpatentable over Aburomia and Eckardt for the reasons
discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3
and 10 as unpatentable over Aburomia, Eckardt, and Jain.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6-
9, and 11-15 as unpatentable over Aburomia and Eckardt.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 and 10 as
unpatentable over Aburomia, Eckardt, and Jain.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11