Ex Parte Hyde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2017

12462332 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2017)

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.
12/462,332 07/31/2009 Roderick A. Hyde 365015CIP/0707-006-C2 3975
136716 7590
HolzerlPLaw, PC
dba, Holzer Patel Drennan
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
07/05/2017 EXAMINER
BURKE, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2017 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):
docketing @ terrapo wer. com
hiplaw@blackhillsip.com
docket @ hpdlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODERICK A. HYDE,
MURIEL Y. ISHIKAWA, NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD,
JOSHUA C. WALTER, THOMAS WEAVER,
VICTORIA Y.H. WOOD, and LOWELL L. WOOD, JR.
Appeal 2015-007887
Application 12/462,332
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 130-144, 147, 150-159, and 164—185. Claims 1—129 are cancelled.
Appeal Br. 54 (Claims Appendix). Claims 145, 146, 148, 149, 160—163,
and 186 are withdrawn. Id. at 57—58, 60-61, 67. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-007887
Application 12/462,332
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 130, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
130. A system, comprising:
at least one thermoelectric device for converting nuclear reactor
generated heat to electrical energy upon a nuclear reactor system
shutdown event; and
at least one electrical output of the at least one thermoelectric
device electrically coupled to at least one mechanical pump of the
nuclear reactor system for supplying the electrical energy to the at
least one mechanical pump of the nuclear reactor system.
REJECTIONS
Claims 130-134, 136—143, 147, 151, 152, and 159 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dagard (US 2003/0072403 Al, pub.
Apr. 17, 2003).
Claims 130, 143, 144, 166—170, 173, 178, and 185 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by French (US 4,699,754, iss. Oct. 13,
1987).
Claims 164, 165, 171, 172, and 174—177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over French.
Claim 135 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dagard and Dillman (US 5,124,115, iss. June 23, 1992).
Claim 150 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
French and Sim (US 2007/0253520 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2007).
Claims 153—158 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over French and Schultz (US 5,255,296, iss. Oct. 19, 1993).
Claims 179-184 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over French and Gaubatz (US 5,621,776, iss. Apr. 15, 1997).
2
Appeal 2015-007887
Application 12/462,332
ANALYSIS
Claims 130-134, 136-143, 147, 151, 152, and 159
as anticipated by Dagard
Regarding claim 130, the Examiner found that Dagard discloses a
system including a thermoelectric device (steam generator in paragraph 10)
and at least one electrical output of the thermoelectric device coupled to a
mechanical pump (two turbine-driven feedwater pumps in paragraphs 32 and
44) under the plain meaning doctrine. Final Act. 2—3, 4—5. The Examiner
reasoned that Appellants have not defined “thermoelectric device,” and their
Specification provides examples of thermoelectric materials as including a
junction of two materials with different Seebeck coefficients, so a steam
generator is an example of a thermoelectric device that generates electricity
based on a temperature differential over a device as steam moves across a
turbine connected to an electrical dynamo. See Ans. 3—5.
We appreciate that a steam generator generates electricity from steam
moving across a turbine (Ans. 5), but we agree with Appellants that a skilled
artisan would understand the “thermoelectric device” to generate electricity
directly by the Seebeck effect in a thermocouple or a circuit composed of
two dissimilar metals or materials. Appeal Br. 24; Reply Br. 5—6. During
examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation that is
consistent with the Specification. Appellants disclose thermoelectric device
104 as comprising a junction of two materials with different Seebeck
coefficients. Spec. H 8, 16. Junction 117 also may be a thermocouple or
semiconductor-semiconductor junction 118 (p-type/n-type) or metal-metal
junction 120. Id. 116. Thermoelectric device 104 generates electricity from
temperature differentials of the nuclear system. Id. 114, Fig. 1 A.
3
Appeal 2015-007887
Application 12/462,332
Appellants’ use of “thermoelectric” is consistent with an ordinary
usage of the term as illustrated by dictionary definitions in the Reply Brief.
Reply Br. 5—6 (Seebeck effect, electricity produced by direct action of heat
on circuits of dissimilar metals, electromotive force in a thermocouple). The
Specification discloses that a temperature differential may be created across
thermoelectric device 104 by placing first portion 124 of device 104 in direct
thermal communication with a heat exchanger of nuclear reactor system 100
and second portion of device 104 in direct thermal communication with an
environmental reservoir 140, such as a lake. Spec. 114. The Examiner’s
interpretation of thermoelectric device as encompassing a steam generator is
unreasonably broad and inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 130-134, 136—143,
147, 151, 152, and 159 as anticipated by Dagard.
Claims 130, 143, 144, 166-170, 173, 178, and 185
as anticipated by French
Regarding claim 130, the Examiner found that French discloses a
system comprising a thermoelectric device (the circulation system used to
cool the reactor during a shutdown event) with an electrical output coupled
to a mechanical pump (thermoelectric electromagnetic pump (TEMP)) of the
nuclear reactor system. Final Act. 3, 10—11; Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that a mechanical pump is driven by electrical power
and acts to mechanically pump a fluid, whereas an electromagnetic pump is
driven by electric power and acts to electromagnetically pump a liquid metal
fluid via electromagnetism. Appeal Br. 38. Appellants also argue that the
jet pump is not a mechanical pump and is not electrically coupled to an
output of a thermoelectric device. Id.
4
Appeal 2015-007887
Application 12/462,332
The Examiner’s interpretation of “mechanical pump” to include the
TEMP of French is unreasonable. French discloses that TEMP 22 uses
electrical energy from thermoelectric elements to generate a magnetic field
that moves electrically-conductive metal coolant 28. French, 3:20—25.
TEMP 22 thus supplies electrical energy from its thermoelectric elements to
its electromagnetic pump to move metal coolant 28 using a magnetic field,
rather than supplying electrical energy to a mechanical pump that moves the
fluid using mechanical elements. Nor does French provide electrical energy
to jet pump 23. Instead, the high pressure outlet of TEMP 22 is fed into the
drive side 23 A of jet pump 23 and the pressure is converted to high velocity
fluid that drags the main flow stream along with it. Id. at 3:31—35, Fig. 2.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 130, 143, 144, 166—
170, 173, 178, and 185 as anticipated by French.
Claims 164, 165, 171, 172, and 174-177
as unpatentable over French
The Examiner’s determination that French renders obvious various
limitations of claims 164, 165, 171, 172, and 174—177 (Final Act. 16—18)
does not overcome the deficiencies of French as to claim 130 from which
these claims depend. See Final Act. 16—18. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of these claims.
Claim 135 as unpatentable over Dagard and Dillman
The Examiner’s reliance on Dillman to teach mechanical pumps in
series, as recited in claim 135 (Final Act. 18—19), does not overcome the
deficiencies of Dagard noted above as to claim 130 from which claim 135
depends. Thus, we do not sustain this rejection.
5
Appeal 2015-007887
Application 12/462,332
Claim 150 as unpatentable over French and Sim
The Examiner’s reliance on Sim to teach a fast spectrum reactor as
recited in claim 150 (Final Act. 19) does not overcome the deficiencies of
French as to claim 130 from which claim 150 depends. Thus, we do not
sustain this rejection.
Claims 153—158
as unpatentable over French and Schultz
The Examiner’s reliance on Schultz to teach limitations recited in
claims 153—158 (Final Act. 19—22) does not overcome the deficiencies of
French as to claim 130 from which these claims depend. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
Claims 179—184
as unpatentable over French and Gaubatz
The Examiner’s reliance on Gaubatz to teach limitations recited in
claims 179—184 (Final Act. 22—25) does not overcome the deficiencies of
French as to claim 130 from which these claims depend. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 130—144, 147, 150-159, and 164—
185.
REVERSED
6