Ex Parte Higgins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2013

11741391 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUSSELL PATRICK HIGGINS
____________

Appeal 2011-000689
Application 11/741,391
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 5-25. App. Br. 4. Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-000689
Application 11/741,391

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 14, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A spacer grid for a nuclear reactor fuel bundle,
said grid comprising:
a plurality of interstitial dividers that form an array of
cells, each cell structured to retain a respective one of a
plurality of fuel rods to form an array of equally spaced fuel
rods; and
a perimeter band peripherally surrounding the dividers,
the perimeter band including a plurality of spring tabs formed
along a bottom edge of the perimeter band, each of the spring
tabs having a proximal portion having a substantially straight
length extending from the bottom edge of the perimeter band at
an angle away from the dividers and a distal portion configured
to contact and apply a spring force to an interior surface of a
respective one of a plurality of walls of a channel in which the
arrayed fuel rods can be inserted to form the fuel bundle, the
plurality of spring tabs being configured such that each of the
distal portions contacts and applies the spring force to the
interior surface below a bottom edge of the perimeter band,
each of the springs tabs being further configured so that a
length of the proximal portion is longer than a length of the
distal portion.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-18, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Narabayashi (JP 64-006793; pub. Jan. 11, 1989).
Claims 9, 10, 19, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Narabayashi and Nylund (US 6,385,271 B2; iss.
May 7, 2002).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Narabayashi and Mayers (US 3,719,560; iss. Mar. 6, 1973).

Appeal 2011-000689
Application 11/741,391

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-18, 21, 23, and 24 anticipated by Narabayashi
The Examiner found that Narabayashi discloses a spacer grid 2 with a
plurality of dividers that form an array of cells, each cell structured to retain
a fuel rod 1 and form an array of equally spaced fuel rods, and a perimeter
band with a plurality of spring tabs 9 formed along a bottom edge, with each
spring tab 9 having a proximal portion extending from a bottom edge of the
perimeter band at an angle away from the dividers, and a distal portion of
spring tab 9 is configured to contact and apply a spring force to an interior
surface of a wall of a channel 5 in which arrayed fuel rods can be inserted to
form a bundle. Ans. 4-5 (citing figs. 2, 4). The Examiner interpreted the
limitation “angled away” to include an angle of 0 degrees. Ans. 13. The
Examiner also found that Narabayashi’s metal wire 7 dividers are flexible
and expand and contract based on the temperature of its environment to
cause spring tabs 9 to rotate plus or minus a few degrees in relation to the
perimeter band. Id.
Appellant argues that Narabayashi’s spring tabs 9 do not extend at an
angle away from a perimeter band (spacer 2) and dividers (wires 7) to apply
a spring force to an interior surface of a wall of the channel. App. Br. 15.
Appellant also argues that the claimed spring tabs do not extend at an angle
of 0 degrees because claims 1, 14, and 21 recite that the spring tabs extend
“at an angle away from the dividers” so that a distal portion is configured to
contact and apply a spring force to an interior surface of a respective one of
the channel walls, and spring tabs extending straight downward at 0 degrees
do not extend at an angle away from the dividers and are not configured to
apply a spring force to an interior surface of a channel wall. App. Br. 15-16;
Appeal 2011-000689
Application 11/741,391

4
Reply Br. 4-7. Appellant also asserts that the Examiner’s finding that metal
wires 7 expand and contract to cause spring tabs 9 to rotate a few degrees
relative to the perimeter band is conjecture and lacks a credible basis for
concluding that temperature changes will necessarily cause spacer tabs 9 to
extend from the edge of spacer 2 at an angle away from the dividers so the
distal ends of the spacer tabs 9 contact and apply a spring force to an interior
surface of channel box 5. Reply Br. 8-9.
The Examiner’s interpretation of the term “angled away,” to include
an angle of 0 degrees, is inconsistent with the language of claims 1, 14, and
21, interpreted in light of Appellant’s Specification. Claims 1, 14, and 21
recite a plurality of spring tabs extending from an edge of a perimeter band
“at an angle away from the dividers” so that a distal end of each spring tab
contacts and applies a spring force to an interior surface of a channel wall.
Appellant discloses that each spring tab 46 extends from the perimeter band
edge 50 at an angle θ formed at the junction of the spring tab proximal end
52 and the perimeter band edge 50 so the spring tab 46 extends away from
the dividers 30 and a distal end 54 of each spring tab 46 contacts an interior
surface 58 of a channel wall 62. Spec. 8, para. [0025]. Appellant illustrates
angle θ as a non-vertical (i.e., non-zero) angle in Figures 2B and 3-8.
Narabayashi’s spacer tabs (extension tabs 9) extend from a bottom edge of
perimeter band (spacer 2) and the dividers (metal wires 7) are attached to
distal ends of the extension tabs 9. See Narabayashi, p. 8; fig. 4.1 Thus, the
tabs 9 extend from the bottom edge of the spacer 2 toward the metal wire
dividers 7 rather than at an angle away from the dividers 7. Even if the
extension tabs 9 of Narabayashi could be considered to extend away from

1 Refers to English language translation by FLS, Inc., Oct. 2009.
Appeal 2011-000689
Application 11/741,391

5
the dividers, the Examiner has not adequately established that distal portions
of each extension tab 9 are capable of contacting and applying a spring force
to an interior surface of a channel wall. The Examiner’s finding that metal
wires 7 would expand or contract in a way that would result in the extension
tabs 9 extending from the perimeter band at an angle way from the metal
wire dividers 7 to exert a spring force on interior surfaces of channel walls is
speculative and not supported by a preponderance of evidence. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-18, 21, 23, and 24.
Claims 9, 10, 19, 20, and 25 unpatentable over Narabayashi and Nylund
The Examiner relied on Nylund to disclose features of claims 9, 10,
19, 20, and 25, which depend from one of claims 1, 14, and 21, and not to
remedy deficiencies of Narabayashi as to claims 1, 14, and 21. Ans. 10;
App. Br. 18. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, 20, and 25.
Claim 22 unpatentable over Narabayashi and Mayers
The Examiner relied on Mayers to disclose features of claim 22,
which depends from claim 21, and not to remedy Narabayashi’s deficiencies
as to claim 21. Ans. 12; App. Br. 18. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 22.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-25.

REVERSED

mls