Ex Parte Memmott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

13495069 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
13/495,069 06/13/2012 Matthew J. Memmott RTU2011-010 1021
26353 7590 04/26/2017
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
EXAMINER
DAVIS, SHARON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
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 MATTHEW J. MEMMOTT, ALEXANDER W. HARKNESS,
AND WILLIAM EDWARD CUMMINS
Appeal 2015-007179
Application 13/495,069
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Matthew J. Memmott et al. (“Appellants”) seek review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated January 9, 2015 (“Final Act.”), and as further explained
in the Advisory Action dated March 5, 2015 (“Adv. Act.”), rejecting claims
1—11 and 13—15.1 Claim 12 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Westinghouse Electric Company LLC as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007179
Application 13/495,069
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “pertains generally to small modular
pressurized water reactors and more particularly to a combined core makeup
tank and heat removal system for such a reactor.” Spec. 12. Claim 1, the
sole independent claim, is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A modular pressurized water reactor having
a primary circuit including a reactive core, an
upper internals, a steam generator heat exchanger
and pressurizer housed within a reactor pressure
vessel which is enclosed within a substantially
close fitting containment, including a primary
coolant hot leg between a coolant flow exit from
the core and an upstream side of the steam
generator heat exchanger and a coolant cold leg
between a downstream side of the steam generator
heat exchanger and a coolant flow entrance to the
core, the hot leg and cold leg being housed within
the reactor pressure vessel, the modular
pressurized water reactor further including a
combined passive heat removal system and high-
head water injection system comprising:
a core makeup tank including:
a heat exchange assembly supported within
the core makeup tank, the heat exchange assembly
having a primary side and a secondary side, the
primary side having an interior flow path within
the heat exchange assembly with a primary side
inlet and a primary side outlet, the interior flow
path being maintained at a pressure at least equal
to a pressure within the reactive core;
a primary side inlet plenum that is in fluid
communication with the inlet of the interior flow
path of the heat exchange assembly and the hot leg
exiting the core;
2
Appeal 2015-007179
Application 13/495,069
a primary side outlet plenum that is in fluid
communication with the outlet of the interior flow
path of the heat exchange assembly and the cold
leg between the downstream side of the steam
generator heat exchanger and the coolant flow
entrance to the core; and
a secondary side plenum within the
secondary side of the heat exchange assembly
having an inlet end and an outlet end and a
secondary side flow path over an exterior of the
heat exchange assembly interior flow path,
connecting the inlet end to the outlet end of the
secondary side plenum;
an ultimate heat sink heat exchanger is
connected to the core makeup tank between the
inlet end and the outlet end of the secondary side
plenum, wherein the secondary side plenum and a
connection with the ultimate heat sink heat
exchanger is pressurized to an extent to prevent
boiling under accident conditions', and
means for isolating the primary side of the
heat exchange assembly from the core.
REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1—11 and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Conway (US 4,753,771, issued June 28, 1988), Gardner
2 The Examiner rejected claims 1—11 and 13—15 (1) under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Conway and Gardner and (2) under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gardner. See Final Act. 5—8, 13—17. In the Answer dated
July 23, 2015, the Examiner withdraws these rejections. See Ans. 4.
3
Appeal 2015-007179
Application 13/495,069
(US 5,102,616, issued Apr. 7, 1992), and Spinks (US 5,217,682, issued June
8, 1993). See Final Act. 8—13; Ans. 2—6.3
2. Claims 1—11 and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gardner and Spinks. See Ans. 6—11.4
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites, among other limitations,
an ultimate heat sink heat exchanger is connected to the core
makeup tank between the inlet end and the outlet end of the
secondary side plenum, wherein the secondary side plenum and
a connection with the ultimate heat sink heat exchanger is
pressurized to an extent to prevent boiling under accident
conditions.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
For both Rejections 1 and 2, the Examiner relied on Gardner for the
structure in the limitation at issue, (1) identifying element 62 as the “ultimate
heat sink heat exchanger,” (2) identifying element 58 as the “core makeup
tank,” and (3) implicitly identifying element 60 as the “secondary side
plenum” with an “inlet end” and “outlet end” and elements 64 and 66 as the
“connection with the ultimate heat sink heat exchanger.” See Final Act. 9
(citing Gardner, col. 10,11. 12—19) (Rejection 1); Ans. 7 (Rejection 2); see
Gardner, Fig. 1 (showing these elements).
3 The Examiner filed two Answers: one dated July 23, 2015 and
another dated August 4, 2015, which appear to be substantively the same
(but with different page numbering). We will cite to the version dated July
23, 2015, using “Ans.”
4 The Examiner added this Rejection as a new ground in the Answer
dated July 23, 2015.
4
Appeal 2015-007179
Application 13/495,069
The Examiner stated that “Gardner is silent as to the pressure within
the secondary loop of the passive cooling system [(] defined by 60, 62, 66,
64)” but found that “Spinks teaches a passive residual heat removal system
wherein the secondary side plenum and a connection with the ultimate heat
sink heat exchanger is pressurized to an extent to prevent boiling [Qcolumn
4, line 56 through column 5, line 8).” Final Act. 10 (Rejection 1); see also
Ans. 7—8 (Rejection 2) (similar findings). According to the Examiner:
Combining the pressurized passive decay heat system coolant
loop of Spinks with the combined passive heat removal system
and core makeup tank of Gardner offers the predictable
advantage of providing a system that contains a “fairly large
mass of fluid” in the decay heat removal loop ([Spinks], column
4, lines 53—55), which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would have recognized would allow the
passive heat removal system of Gardner to more efficiently
remove heat from the core make-up tank.
Final Act. 10 (Rejection 1); see also Ans. 7—8 (Rejection 2) (similar
reasoning).
Appellants argue that the passage at column 4, line 56 to column 5,
line 8 of Spinks, cited by the Examiner, “teaches that the secondary side of
the decay heat removal heat exchanger is pressurized to an extent to prevent
boiling during normal operation and shutdown” but that Spinks, at column 5,
lines 9 to 25, “further teaches that the pressure in the secondary side is
gauged to permit boiling during an accident condition where the steam
generator is removed as a heat sink.” Appeal Br. 9 (Rejection 1) (emphasis
added); Reply Br. 3^4 (Rejection 2) (emphasis added).5 We agree with this
5 Appellants filed two Reply Briefs: one dated July 27, 2015 and
another dated September 17, 2015. We will cite to the version dated July 27,
5
Appeal 2015-007179
Application 13/495,069
description of the teachings of Spinks. As noted by Appellants, however,
the limitation at issue requires that these structures are “pressurized to an
extent to prevent boiling under accident conditionsAppeal Br. 13 (Claims
App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds:
In Spinks, boiling under accident conditions enables the
activation of the passive heat removal loop in Spinks.
However, Spinks is cited in the rejection as providing only the
pressure within the secondary cooling loop (60/62/66/64) of
Gardner. In Gardner, it is the breaking of vapor lock 78 that
activates the passive cooling system of Gardner (column 13,
line 19 through column 15, line 66) and the boiling under
accident conditions of Spinks is not needed for operation in the
combination. Such activation would occur regardless of the
pressure within the secondary cooling loop (60/62/66/64) of
Gardner.
Ans. 11-12.
Although the Examiner takes the position that the modified device
does not “need[]” Spink’s contrary feature of being pressurized in a manner
to allow boiling under accident conditions {id.), that does not demonstrate
that, in the modified device, the recited structures would satisfy the required
feature of being “pressurized to an extent to prevent boiling under accident
conditions.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In other
words, the Examiner has not shown support for the finding that “combining
the pressurization of the cooling loop taught by Spinks with the system of
Gamer would prevent boiling of the coolant in the secondary loop under any
conditions, including both normal operation and adverse/accident conditions
within the primary loop.” Final Act. 10 (Rejection 1); Ans. 8 (Rejection 2).
2015, and refer to that version as “Reply Br.”
6
Appeal 2015-007179
Application 13/495,069
Moreover, Appellants correctly argue that the passage in Spinks relied
on by the Examiner to support the reason to modify Gardner—Spinks,
column 4, lines 53 to 55—“appears to be referring to the ultimate heat sink
55 and has no relevance” to pressurizing the secondary side. Reply Br. 5
(discussing Spinks, Fig. 3). Appellants also correctly argue that “the issue of
a large mass [of fluid] does not in any manner suggest why you would want
to pressurize the secondary side.” Id. Thus, we agree that the passage
identified does not provide sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness of claim 1. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
either grounds set forth by the Examiner. We also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2—11 and 13—15, which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1—11 and 13—15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conway, Gardner, and Spinks, and
(2) REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1—11 and 13—15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gardner and Spinks.
REVERSED
7