Ex Parte Moen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2013

11777377 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHAN CRAIG MOEN,
JACK PATRICK NOONAN, and PRADIP SAHA
____________

Appeal 2011-000606
Application 11/777,377
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-9 and 18-25. App. Br. 4. Claims 10-17 are cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-000606
Application 11/777,377

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, 18, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A system for controlling the power level of a
natural circulation boiling water nuclear reactor (NCBWR),
said system comprising:
a heating subsystem for heating feedwater flowing into
an annulus of a NCBWR, the heating subsystem including a
steam diversion line configured to receive steam generated by a
core of the NCBWR, and a steam bypass valve configured to
control a flow of the steam in the steam diversion line, wherein
the steam received by the steam diversion line has not passed
through a turbine;
a temperature sensor operable to sense the temperature of
the feedwater flowing into the annulus; and
a controller configured to control a power output level of
the NCBWR by controlling the heating subsystem, based on the
sensed temperature, to adjust the temperature of the feedwater
flowing into the annulus to a desired temperature, wherein the
steam bypass valve is configured to be controlled by the
controller and controlling the heating subsystem includes
controlling the steam bypass valve.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Collett (US 4,150,546; iss. Apr. 24, 1979) and
Chaki (US 2007/0000250 A1; pub. Jan. 4, 2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Collett, Chaki, Suzuki (US 4,877,574, iss. Oct. 31, 1989), and Kitou
(US 2005/0220253 A1; pub. Oct. 6, 2005).
Claims 9, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki and Kitou.
Appeal 2011-000606
Application 11/777,377

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 18-23 unpatentable over Collett and Chaki
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 23
Regarding claims 1 and 23, the Examiner found that Collett discloses
a system for controlling the power level of a boiling water reactor (BWR)
with a bypass valve 62 configured to be controlled by a controller 60 based
on temperature but lacks a temperature sensor that is operable to sense the
temperature of feedwater flowing into the annulus of the reactor. Ans. 4-5,
11-12. The Examiner found that Chaki discloses a temperature sensor that is
operable to sense the temperature of feedwater flowing into the annulus and
determined that it would have been obvious to include this feature in Collett
to monitor the temperature of feedwater entering the reactor and verify that
the temperature is maintained at a preset value. Ans. 5. The Examiner also
found that Collett teaches a steam bypass valve configured to be controlled
by a controller based on pressure and temperature. Ans. 18.
Appellants argue that Collett does not teach a temperature sensor that
senses a temperature of feedwater that flows into the reactor annulus, as the
Examiner acknowledges, and Chaki does not remedy this deficiency. App.
Br. 17-18. Appellants contend that the Examiner has asserted that Chaki
remedies the deficiencies of Collett because pressure and temperature are
directly related and the controller of Collett controls the power output level
based on pressure so it inherently controls the power output level based on
temperature. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 6-8. Appellants also assert that Collett
teaches that secondary flow control valve 62 is configured to be controlled
by regulator 60 based on the pressure of the steam, which is not inherently
related to the temperature of steam at that location. Reply Br. 6-7.
Appeal 2011-000606
Application 11/777,377

4
These arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding
that Chaki discloses a temperature sensor operable to sense the temperature
of feedwater flowing into the annulus of a reactor or the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to include such a temperature
sensor in the system of Collett to verify that the temperature is maintained at
a preset value as taught by Chaki. Ans. 4-5 (citing Chaki, para. [0074]).
The Examiner noted that Collett is considered to inherently disclose
controlling a steam bypass valve based on pressure and temperature (Ans. 4)
but emphasized that the rejection of claims 1 and 23 was based on Chaki’s
temperature sensor in combination with Collett’s system. Ans. 18.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings or
determination of obviousness or explained how the Examiner’s observations
about Collett’s pressure sensor undermines the Examiner’s findings and
determination of obviousness as set forth in the Answer. We sustain the
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 23.
Claims 18-22
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner found that Chaki teaches a system
for controlling the power level of a BWR except for teaching that the flow of
steam into the feedwater heater has not passed through a turbine. Ans. 8-9.
The Examiner found that Collett feeds steam into a feedwater heater 68 from
a steam heater without passing through a turbine 5, 6 and determined that it
would have been obvious to include such a bypass line in Chaki to facilitate
bypass of the turbine during failure. Ans. 9.
Appellants argue that Chaki and Collet operate differently and differ
structurally and the Examiner has arbitrarily pointed to Collett, which does
not operate under the same principle as Chaki, and asserted that it would
Appeal 2011-000606
Application 11/777,377

5
have been obvious for steam supplied to the feedwater heater 9 to have not
passed through the turbine. App. Br. 20. In particular, Appellants argue that
the system of Chaki manages power uprating by measuring the temperature
of the feedwater entering the reactor for the purpose of adjusting the coolant
enthalpy whereas the system of Collett accommodates changes in demand
by monitoring the pressure of the steam exiting the reactor. Id. As a result,
Appellants argue that the proposed combination and modification are the
result of impermissible hindsight. Id. These arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s finding and determination of obviousness as set forth
in the Answer. It is not necessary that inventions of references be physically
combinable to render obvious the invention under review. See In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted); see also Ans. 19
(citation omitted). The Examiner’s reason for including Collett’s bypass on
Chaki is supported by a rational underpinning of facilitating bypass of the
turbine during failure and Appellants have not persuaded us of error in that
determination or explained why the alleged different manner of operation of
Collett and Chaki undermines the Examiner’s findings or determination of
obviousness. We sustain the rejection of claims 18-22.
Claim 7 unpatentable over Collett, Chaki, Suzuki, and Kitou
The Examiner relied on Suzuki and Kitou to disclose features of claim
7, which depends from claim 1. Ans. 13-14. Appellants argue that Suzuki
and Kitou fail to remedy the deficiencies of Collett and Chaki as to claim 1.
App. Br. 21. Because there are no deficiencies to cure for claim 1, we
sustain the rejection of claim 7.

Appeal 2011-000606
Application 11/777,377

6
Claims 9, 24, and 25 unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kitou
The Examiner found that Suzuki discloses a system for controlling the
power level of a natural circulation boiling water nuclear reactor (NCBWR)
including a feedwater bypass valve 14 operable to receive commands from a
temperature controller 25 to control a flow of the feedwater through a heater
bypass line 10 to the annulus 4 to decrease the temperature of the feedwater
flowing into the annulus 4. Ans. 14-15. The Examiner found that Suzuki
fails to teach a plurality of principal feedwater heaters but Kitou teaches this
feature (figure 4) and determined that it would have been obvious to include
a plurality of principal feedwater heaters in Suzuki to heat feedwater from
high and low pressure turbines to extract more energy from the steam and
increase efficiency. Ans. 15-16. The Examiner reasoned that when Suzuki
is combined with Kitou, the valve 14 of Suzuki is considered a bypass valve.
Ans. 20. The Examiner also found that a skilled artisan would understand
from Figure 4 of Kitou that there is a bypass valve at the branch of bypass
line 11 between feedwater heater 9 and pump 8 even though Figure 4 does
not show any valve in line 11. Ans. 20.
Appellants argue that Suzuki discloses a flow rate regulating valve 14
and this valve does not allow feedwater to bypass anything and return pipe
10 is not a heater bypass line as the Examiner found because return pipe 10
feeds directly into heater 15 as opposed to bypassing it. App. Br. 21-22. As
a result, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent
with the ordinary meaning of these terms. App. Br. 22.
The Examiner’s finding that Suzuki discloses a feedwater bypass
valve is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Suzuki discloses
that valve 14 is a flow regulating valve in the return pipe 10 from the turbine
Appeal 2011-000606
Application 11/777,377

7
condenser 9 to a cooling water descending passage 4 in the reactor pressure
vessel 1. Col. 4, ll. 1-10; fig. 1. Water flows from flow rate regulating valve
14 directly into heater 15 and then into the reactor 1. We find no disclosure
in Suzuki that the flow rate control valve 14 controls a flow of feedwater
through a heater bypass line as recited in claim 9 and the Examiner has not
pointed to any such disclosure or explained how combining Kitou’s plurality
of feedwater heaters with Suzuki would result in flow rate control valve 14
operating as a bypass valve. Nor has the Examiner established that Kitou
discloses a bypass valve in feedwater bypass line 11. See In re Robertson,
169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”) (internal citation and
quotations omitted). We cannot sustain the rejection of claims 9, 24, and 25.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-8 and 18-23 and REVERSE the
rejection of claims 9, 24, and 25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh