Ex Parte Ortega et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2012

11618439 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte FRANK ORTEGA and
MARK WILLIAM BROADDUS
____________________

Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank Ortega and Mark William Broaddus (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. The
Examiner withdrew claims 21-32 from consideration. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. An assembly for refueling a nuclear reactor having a reactor
core including a plurality of elongated core components
positioned in a reactor pool, a reactor pool bridge positioned
above and movable over the reactor pool, a fuel pool, a fuel
pool bridge positioned above and movable over the fuel
pool, and a transfer pool fluidly coupling the fuel pool to the
reactor pool, the assembly comprising:
a handover assembly selectively positionable within a
transfer channel and having at least two compartments each
configured for selectively securing one of the core
components in a vertical position, the handover assembly
being movable to allow independent and simultaneous
selective access to each compartment by a reactor pool
grapple operating from the reactor pool bridge and by a fuel
pool grapple operating from the fuel pool bridge.

Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Howard
Plumier
Townsend
Mallie
Kowdley
US 4,427,623
US 4,713,212
US 5,291,532
US 5,377,240
US 5,473,645
Jan. 24, 1984
Dec. 15, 1987
Mar. 1, 1994
Dec. 27, 1994
Dec. 5, 1995
Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
3
Bäversten US 5,896,430 Apr. 20, 1999
Rejections
Appellants request our review of the Examiner’s rejections of:
(1) claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Townsend and Bäversten;
(2) claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Howard, Townsend, and Bäversten;
(3) claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Howard, Townsend, Bäversten, and Plumier;
(4) claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Townsend, Bäversten, and Howard;
(5) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howard,
Townsend, Bäversten, and Kowdley;
(6) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Howard, Townsend, Bäversten, Plumier, and Kowdley;
(7) claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Townsend, Bäversten, Howard, and Kowdley;
(8) claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howard,
Townsend, Bäversten, and Mallie;
(9) claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Townsend, Bäversten, Howard, and Mallie.
OPINION
Rejection (1)
Appellants argue that Townsend’s “fuel pool bridge 52 and reactor
pool bridge 26 run on tracks [54 and 28] that do not extend closely enough
toward each other that grapples 58/32 would be allowed to simultaneously
Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
4
access the compartment of handover assembly 60, as recited in claim 1.”
App. Br. 16.
In response, the Examiner explains that the Examiner construes
“access,” consistent with an ordinary dictionary definition, as “permission,
liberty, or ability to enter, approach, or pass to and from a place or to
approach or communicate with a person or thing.” Ans. 26. Construing the
term “access” in the sense of “approach,” the Examiner finds that
Townsend’s handover assembly (transfer machine 60) allows independent
and simultaneous access of the reactor grapple and the fuel pool grapple to
each compartment of the handover assembly. Id.
Appellants baldly assert that “the Examiner appears to misconstrue
the claim language,” but do not specifically point out the error in the
Examiner’s construction or proffer a different definition for the term
“access.” See Reply Br. 2.
Appellants also argue that Townsend’s handover assembly (transfer
machine 60) only allows for one compartment, and thus cannot permit
independent and simultaneous access to the same, one compartment. Reply
Br. 3. This argument attacks Townsend in isolation, rather than as combined
with Bäversten as proposed by the Examiner1, and thus is not convincing.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants additionally argue that because Townsend’s handover
assembly (transfer machine 60) rigidly slides along track 76, the handover

1 The Examiner finds that Bäversten “teaches a handover assembly with at
least two compartments” and determines that it would have been obvious “to
construct said assembly with at least two compartments in order to move
more than one core component at a time.” Ans. 5.
Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
5
assembly is not able to move to then allow the grapples 32 and 58 to select
between compartments. Reply Br. 5. Further, Appellants argue that
Bäversten would not remedy the deficiencies of Townsend, because “the
combination of the two references still would not teach or suggest a
handover assembly that moves (for example, rotates/pivots, etc.) to then
allow grapples to “selectively access” compartments.” Id. These arguments
are not persuasive. The Examiner finds that the handover assembly (transfer
machine 60) is movable. Ans. 4; see Townsend, col. 6, ll. 3-15; col. 9, ll.
64-66. Claim 1 does not specify any particular type of movement, such as
pivoting or rotation, and does not require that the movement of the handover
assembly cause selection of a particular compartment over another
compartment, as Appellants’ argument suggests.
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Townsend
and Bäversten. We sustain the rejection.
Rejection (2)
In contesting this rejection, Appellants argue that Howard only
teaches one grapple, and thus “does not teach or suggest a handover
assembly that allows for the ‘independent and simultaneous selective access’
of both a reactor pool grapple and a fuel pool grapple, as recited in claim 1,”
and further that Howard lacks a handover assembly with “‘at least two
compartments,’ as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 19. The Examiner
acknowledges these deficiencies in Howard, and relies on the additional
teachings of Townsend and Bäversten to overcome them. Ans. 5-7.
Appellants assert that Townsend and Bäversten do not remedy the
deficiencies of Howard for the reasons set forth by Appellants in contesting
rejection (1). App. Br. 19-20. For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’
Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
6
arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Townsend and Bäversten. Consequently, Appellants’
reliance on those arguments in contesting the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Howard, Townsend, and Bäversten is unavailing. We
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and
11, for which Appellants do not present any separate arguments, as
unpatentable over Howard, Townsend, and Bäversten.
Appellants separately contest the rejection of claim 4, which depends
from claim 1 and further requires, in relevant part, that the handover
assembly include a mast with attached compartments “coupled in a fixed
position about a lower portion of the fuel pool bridge.” This feature is
shown in Appellants’ figure 4, in the form of a handover assembly 30
including a carousel mast 69 and carousel 68 in a fixed position and aligned
with the center of the transfer channel 32. Spec., para. [0051]. Appellants
argue that Howard’s mast 10 is attached to a movable trolley 8 that runs on
tracks 27 and 28, and thus is not “‘coupled in a fixed position about a lower
portion of the fuel pool bridge,’ as recited in claim 4.” App. Br. 20.
The Examiner finds that Howard’s “mast 10 is attached to a lower
portion of the fuel bridge 7 because said mast is directly attached to the
trolley which is directly attached to the lower portion of the fuel pool bridge
7.” Ans. 30. Further, the Examiner finds that “[a]lthough the mast is
capable of being raised, lowered or transported along the length of the fuel
pool bridge, said mast is also capable of being held fixed.” Id. Moreover,
the Examiner finds that as Howard’s mast 10 travels from the fuel pool 4 to
the reactor pool 3, it is held in a fixed position relative to the fuel pool
bridge. Id.; see Howard, col. 10, ll. 34-37 (teaching that if the present and
destination positions of the bridge 7, trolley 8, and grapple 9 are not on
Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
7
common sides of the channel 5, the trolley moves to the centerline for
passage through the channel 5).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Howard’s mast
10 is held in a fixed position relative to the fuel bridge 7 during travel from
the fuel pool 4 to the reactor pool 3. Rather, Appellants reiterate that
because Howard’s mast is located on the trolley, and the trolley slides along
the length of the fuel pool bridge, the mast is in an “unfixed” position on the
fuel pool bridge. See Reply Br. 6.
Claim 4 does not require that the mast of the handover assembly be
coupled in a permanently fixed position about the lower portion of the fuel
pool bridge. The Examiner made an undisputed finding, which appears to
be reasonably supported by Howard, of at least one circumstance in which
Howard’s trolley 8 is in a fixed position relative to the bridge 7, and thus the
mast 10, pivotally shock mounted on the floor of the upper level of the
trolley (see Howard, col. 4, ll. 27-28), is rotatably coupled in a fixed position
about the fuel pool bridge. Appellants fail to identify any flaw in the
Examiner’s position that this satisfies the claim limitation in question.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to persuade us the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4 as unpatentable over Howard, Townsend, and
Bäversten. We sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Rejections (3)-(9)
In contesting these rejections, Appellants rely on their arguments
asserted against rejections (1) and (2) of claim 1. See App. Br. 22-28. These
arguments are not convincing for the reasons discussed above. Thus, we
sustain rejections (3)-(9).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-006214
Application 11/618,439
8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls