Ex Parte Pappone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2014

11261489 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL CHARLES PAPPONE,
DANIEL VERNE SOMMERVILLE, TEDDY EARL McDOWELL,
JOHN JOSEPH LYNCH, DAVID GALBALLY,
VENKAT ARUNACHALAM RAMANI, JEFFREY H. SANDERS, and
MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER O’CONNER
____________

Appeal 2012-003183
Application 11/261,489
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel Charles Pappone et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
claims 1, 4–6, 8–11, 16, 21, and 22. Claims 12–15, 17, and 18 have been
withdrawn and claims 2, 3, 7, 19, and 20 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2012-003183
Application 11/261,489
3
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to “a method and apparatus for testing
the steam system of a boiling water reactor (BWR).” Spec. 1, para. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system for monitoring the affect of acoustic loads
expected on boiling water reactor (BWR) steam dryers,
comprising:
a BWR scale model, the BWR scale model including a
scale model of a reactor pressure vessel and a system dryer;
a test fixture located upstream of the BWR scale model,
the test fixture configured to generate and supply air flow, and
associated acoustic loads, into the BWR scale model;
at least one measurement device attached to the BWR
scale model and configured to monitor system behavior of the
BWR scale model to predict how acoustic loads affect plant
operation at the BWR; and
at least one main steam line located downstream of the
BWR scale model,
wherein the at least one main steam line includes at least
one adjustable component, the adjustable component including
at least one of a pipe length adjuster and a relief valve inlet
length adjuster.

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 9–11, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over “Evaluation of Flow
Induced Vibration for Fixed Typed Guide Rods of Shroud Head
and Steam Dryer in ABWR,” Shirou Takahashi et al,
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Nuclear
Engineering ICONE 10, Volume 1, p. 727–34, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (2002) (hereafter
“Takahashi”), Bilanin (US 2006/0078081 A1, pub. Apr. 13,
Appeal 2012-003183
Application 11/261,489
4
2006), and “Fluid-Elastic Instability in a Tube Array Subjected
to Uniform and Jet Flow,” Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, Vol. 126, p. 269–74, (May 2004) (hereafter
“Feenstra”).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takahashi, Bilanin, Feenstra, and “Study on
Acoustic Resonance and Its Damping of BWR Steam Dome,”
Masaya Ohtsuka et al. (hereafter “Ohtsuka”).
III. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takahashi, Bilanin, Feenstra, and “Flutter
Model Technology,” Ron Busan, Wright Laboratory Final
Report (January 1998) (hereafter “Busan”).
IV. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takahashi, Bilanin, Feenstra, and Brown (US
3,665,964, iss. May 30, 1972).
V. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takahashi, Bilanin, Feenstra, and Bittermann
(US 6,333,956 B1, iss. Dec. 25, 2001).
VI. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takahashi, Bilanin, Feenstra, and Fargo (US
5,289,901, iss. Mar. 1, 1994).
VII. The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takahashi, Bilanin, Feenstra, and Livada (SU
1229506 A1, pub. May 7, 1986) or Motoki (JP 41-0085161 A,
pub. Apr. 7, 1998).

Appeal 2012-003183
Application 11/261,489
5
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner found that Takahashi discloses a system for monitoring
the effect of acoustic loads expected on BWR steam dryers using a BWR
scale model and at least one measurement device attached to the BWR scale
model to monitor system behavior and predict acoustic loads. Ans. 6 (citing
Takahashi, p. 729, paras. 3 and 4 and Figs. 4 and 5). The Examiner further
found that Bilanin discloses “a BWR system which includes at least one
main steam line (A, B, C, D) located downstream of the BWR model…and
at least one adjustable component.” Ans. 7 (citing Bilanin, Figs. 2, 4, and 6).
Finally, the Examiner found that Feenstra discloses a test fixture for
generating and supplying airflow associated with “acoustic loads to the
BWR scale model.” Id (citing Feenstra, p. 269, col. 2, para. 2 and Fig. 1).
The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to include the
at least one steam line and adjustable component of Bilanin into Takahashi’s
system “to facilitate monitoring of acoustic pressure loads within a BWR
steam dome without the need to make measurements within the BWR steam
dome.” Id (citing Bilanin, para. 7). The Examiner further concluded that it
would have been obvious to include the test fixture of Feenstra into the
system of Takahashi and Bilanin in order to “simulate real BWR operating
conditions (e.g. flow behavior, acoustic load generation, etc.).” Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that because (1) the BWR scale model of
Takahashi’s system is designed to use water; (2) the steam lines of Bilanin’s
BWR use steam; and (3) Feenstra’s test fixture is used in a wind tunnel, a
Appeal 2012-003183
Application 11/261,489
6
person having ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the
teachings of Takahashi, Bilanin, and Feenstra as proposed by the Examiner.
App. Br. 17–19 and 24–261; see also Reply Br. 5–6. We agree.
It is undisputed that Takahashi fails to disclose at least one main
steam line located downstream of the BWR scale model. Ans. 6–7. Bilanin
discloses a system and method for estimating the “fluctuating pressure loads
on components . . . within a BWR steam dome using pressure time history
measurements made on components of the BWR facility external to the
steam dome.” Bilanin, Abstract. Although Bilanin discloses that it is
known to take pressure measurements on the main steam lines of a BWR,
we find the rejection insufficient to explain what in the prior art would have
prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide steam lines to
Takahashi’s BWR scale model which uses water, and not steam.
Furthermore, the reason proffered by the Examiner, i.e., “to facilitate
monitoring of acoustic pressure loads within a BWR steam dome without the
need to make measurements within the BWR steam dome” (Ans. 7), appears
to already be adequately performed by Takahashi’s system because
Takahashi uses measurements obtained from a BWR scale model and not
from a full scale BWR. Moreover, the Examiner has not provided any
findings that either Takahashi or Bilanin recognized a problem with
Takahashi’s water based BWR scale model to require its modification to a
steam based BWR model, as the Examiner proposes. Absent hindsight, we
fail to see why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led

1 Appellants did not provide page numbers on the Appeal Brief.
However, for ease of referring to Appellants’ arguments, we have assigned
page numbers 1 through 37 to the Appeal Brief.

Appeal 2012-003183
Application 11/261,489
7
by the teachings of Bilanin to modify Takahashi’s water based BWR scale
model in the manner claimed. The Examiner’s use of the teachings of
Feenstra does not remedy the deficiency of Takahashi and Bilanin as
described supra. See Ans. 7-8.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 5, 9–11, and 21 as unpatentable over
Takahashi, Bilanin, and Feenstra.

Rejections II-VII
The combined teachings of Takahashi, Bilanin, and Feenstra form the
basis of these rejections. The Examiner’s use of the teachings of Ohtsuka ,
Busan, Brown, Bittermann, Fargo, and either Livada or Motoki does not
remedy the deficiencies of Takahashi, Bilanin, and Feenstra. See Ans. 11–
19. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we also do not sustain
Rejections II through VII.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–6, 8–11, 16, 21, and 22
is reversed.

REVERSED

tkl