Ex Parte Gilmore et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 5, 2010

11745600 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 5, 2010)

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.
11/745,600 05/08/2007 Charles B. Gilmore NPP2007-001 1086
26353 7590 11/05/2010
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
P.O. BOX 355
PITTSBURGH, PA 15230-0355
EXAMINER
BOYD, ERIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2010 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 CHARLES B. GILMORE, DAVID A. ALTMAN, and
NORMAN R. SINGLETON
____________

Appeal 2009-008992
Application 11/745,600
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008992
Application 11/745,600

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles B. Gilmore et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a flow deflector-to-core
barrel interface in a water-cooled nuclear reactor having direct vessel
injection. Spec. 1, para. [0001]; Spec. 4, para. [0007]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A nuclear reactor comprising:
a pressure vessel having an axial dimension;
a fluid inlet nozzle extending through the wall of the
pressure vessel;
an internal structure supported within the pressure vessel
in spaced relationship with and opposite a pressure vessel
interior side of said inlet nozzle; and
a deflector positioned between the internal support
structure and the fluid inlet nozzle, having a concave face in-
line with the inlet nozzle, for deflecting substantially all of the
fluid flowing through the inlet nozzle into the pressure vessel,
the deflector having a main body with a front side facing the
fluid inlet nozzle and a rear side facing the internal support
structure, the rear side of the main body having at least one
protrusion affixed to the internal support structure, so that a gap
exists between the rear side of the main body adjacent the
protrusion and the internal support structure.
Appeal 2009-008992
Application 11/745,600

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7-10, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ferree (US 4,576,778; issued March
18, 1986).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferree.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferree and Packer (Jeffrey A. Packer and Silke
Willibald, Tubular Structures, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM AND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
TUBULAR STRUCTURES, July 27, 2006, at 569).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ferree and Kwon (US 6,928,133 B2; issued
August 9, 2005).
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Ferree discloses a
deflector “having at least one protrusion affixed to the internal support
structure, so that a gap exists between the rear side of the main body
adjacent the protrusion and the internal support structure” as called for in
claim 1.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Ferree discloses a nuclear reactor
comprising a pressure vessel (reactor vessel 20), a fluid inlet nozzle
Appeal 2009-008992
Application 11/745,600

4
(inlet 22), an internal support structure (core barrel 28), and a deflector
(plug 50) positioned between the internal support structure (28) and the fluid
inlet nozzle (22). Ans. 4. The Examiner further found, with reference to an
annotated Figure 4 of Ferree, that Ferree’s deflector has a protrusion
(cylindrical portion 60) affixed to the internal support structure (28) so that a
gap exists between the rear side of the main body (58/90) adjacent to the
protrusion (60) and the internal support structure (28). Ans. 4-5. Figure 4 of
Ferree, as annotated by the Examiner, is reproduced below:

Figure 4 of Ferree, as annotated by the Examiner, shows the Examiner’s
finding as to where Ferree discloses the claimed deflector having the
claimed “gap” between the rear side of the main body of the deflector
adjacent the protrusion and the internal support structure. Ans. 5.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Ferree’s plug has a
protrusion affixed to the internal support structure so that a gap exists
between the rear side of the main body and the internal support structure.
Appeal 2009-008992
Application 11/745,600

5
Ferree’s plug 50 is disposed in a flow port 42 in core barrel 28. Ferree, col.
3, ll. 3-4 and ll. 41-43; fig. 2. The plug 50 is comprised of a body 52 and a
mandrel 54 slidably disposed in a first bore 56 of body 52. Ferree, col. 4, ll.
3-5; fig. 4. The body 52 is comprised of a flange 58 and a cylindrical
portion 60. Ferree, col. 4, ll. 8-9; fig. 4. Flange 58 may seat on the outside
of port 42. Ferree, col. 4, l. 11; fig. 4. The plug 50 may also have an end
plug 90 welded to the inside diameter of flange 58. Ferree, col. 5, ll. 13-16;
fig. 4. A series of baffle plates 38 are disposed between core 34 and core
barrel 28. Ferree, col. 2, ll. 64-66; fig. 2. Because the plug 50 is disposed in
flow port 42 of the core barrel 28, the rear side of the plug does not face the
core barrel 28. Instead, the rear side of the plug 50 faces baffle plates 38.
Ferree, fig. 2. Thus, the gap identified by the Examiner in annotated Figure
4, reproduced above, is a gap between the rear side of the main body (58/90)
of plug 50 and the mandrel 54 of plug 50, or arguably a gap between the rear
side of the main body (58/90) and baffle plates 38. In any event, no gap
exists between the rear side of the main body of the Ferree’s plug and the
core barrel.
The Examiner notes in the Response to Arguments portion of the
Answer that “[p]art of the rear side of the main body 58/90 is in contact with
the internal support structure 28 (figure 4); thus, said rear side (at least a
portion of it) of the main body 58/90 obviously faces the support structure
28.” Ans. 15. While we agree that a portion of the flange 58 is in contact
with the core barrel 28, we find that no gap exists between this portion of the
flange 58 and core barrel 28, as called for in claim 1. Ferree, fig. 4.
Appeal 2009-008992
Application 11/745,600

6
The Examiner’s finding that Ferree discloses a deflector having a
protrusion affixed to the internal support structure so that a gap exists
between the rear side of the main body and the internal support structure is
in error. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
or its dependent claims 7-10 and 13-17 as anticipated by Ferree.
The rejections of the remaining dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 all rely on the same erroneous underlying finding of fact that Ferree
discloses a deflector having the claimed protrusion and gap. As such, for the
same reasons discussed in the analysis of independent claim 1, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-6, 11, and 12 under § 103.
CONCLUSION
Ferree fails to disclose a deflector “having at least one protrusion
affixed to the internal support structure, so that a gap exists between the rear
side of the main body adjacent the protrusion and the internal support
structure” as called for in claim 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

nlk

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
P.O. BOX 355
PITTSBURGH PA 15230-0355