Ex Parte Patel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

13204091 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 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.
13/204,091 08/05/2011 Raman (Rajoo) G. Patel NPP2011-001 9084
26353 7590 04/27/2017
WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C EXAMINER
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
DAVIS, SHARON M
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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 RAMAN (RAJOO) G. PATEL, DANIEL L. WALTERS,
ARTHUR W. FRANCIS, CHRISTOPHER F. HERLEMAN,
DOUGLAS E. EKEROTH, MATTHEW M. ROHR, and
ABBY L. STEMLER
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Raman (Rajoo) G. Patel et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, 8-17, 21, and
23. Claims 5, 7, 18-20, and 22 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a nuclear steam generator
support and alignment structure. See Spec. 2, 11, Figs. 2A, 2B, 3. Claim
1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed
subject matter and recites:
1. A nuclear steam generator support and alignment structure for
supporting a steam generator from a floor or an internal wall of
a nuclear containment and aligning an inlet and an outlet of the
steam generator with a corresponding outlet and inlet on a main
reactor coolant loop component, comprising;
a substantially rigid support fixture extending from the
floor or internal wall of the nuclear containment and attached to
at least two spaced locations around a circumference of the steam
generator to support an entire weight of the steam generator, the
substantially rigid support fixture including;
a base supported from the floor or internal wall;
a support section attached to the at least two locations
around the circumference of the steam generator; and
a drive mechanism for raising, lowering or rotating the
support section relative to the base in incremental movements,
with the steam generator secured within the support section and
the drive mechanism supported between the base and the support
section, the drive mechanism, on command of an operator, is
operable to raise, lower and rotate the support section to align the
steam generator with a corresponding connection of a primary
coolant piping system of a reactor.
2
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
REJECTIONS1’2
I. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of written description.
II. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for indefiniteness.
III. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for encompassing a
human organism.
IV. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-17, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Sickel (US 3,716,451; iss. Feb. 13, 1973),
Chavez (US 5,307,386; iss. Apr. 26, 1994), and Ling (US 5,752,834; iss.
May 19, 1998).
V. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Sickel and Ling.3
1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed
September 8, 2014 (hereinafter “Final Act.”), the second subsequent Answer
mailed March 12, 2015 (hereinafter “Ans.”), the Appeal Brief filed October
22, 2014 (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”), and the second subsequent Reply Brief
filed March 31, 2015 (hereinafter “Reply Br.”).
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the following rejections: (1) the rejections of
claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement
and (2) the rejection of claims 4, 8, 10-17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for indefmiteness. See Ans. 16.
3 The Examiner designated this rejection as a New Ground of Rejection in the
Answer. See Ans. 13.
3
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
ANALYSIS
Written Description
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 21
The Examiner determines that “[t]he specification and the drawings
contain no mention of the ‘drive mechanism’ recited in the claims.” Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 4.
Compliance with the written description requirement set forth in the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require that the claimed subject
matter be described identically in the Specification, but the disclosure as
originally filed must convey to those skilled in the art that applicant had
invented the subject matter later claimed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants’ Specification describes that
the hydraulic members [44, 48] connected to the upper support
frame 34 may be utilized to maneuver the steam generator into
the desired position in alignment with the primary coolant piping.
In this regard, the vertical hydraulic members 48 may be
activated to lower or raise the steam generator 18.... the vertical
hydraulic members 48 support the upper support frame 34 and
are attached to the support ring 46. The lateral hydraulic
members 44 may then be activated to maneuver the steam
generator in the X-Y direction. In the exemplary embodiment
shown in Figures 2-6, each lateral hydraulic member 44 is
positioned adjacent and connected to a saddle 38 and each of the
saddles are connected to the support ring 46 at circumferentially
spaced locations. The lateral hydraulic member 44 can thus force
the support ring 46 to change position. Forcing the support ring
46 to change position as a result of the activation of the lateral
hydraulic member 44 causes the upper support frame to change
position in an X-Y plane.
Spec. ^ 39, Figs. 2-6; see also id. ^ 36. Upon review of Appellants’
Specification, a skilled artisan would recognize that hydraulic members 44,
4
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
48 represent the “drive mechanism” recited in the claims. See Appeal Br. 8.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 3, 6, 9, and 21 for lack of written description.
Drawing Objection
The Examiner also objected to Appellants’ drawings under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.83(a) on the grounds that “[t]he drawings must show every feature of the
invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘drive mechanism’ of
claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the
claim(s). No new matter should be entered.” Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 3.
Ordinarily, an objection is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181
and a rejection is appealable to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. When
the issue of new matter presented is the subject of both an objection and a
rejection, the issue is appealable. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure § 608.04(c) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015) (providing that
“where the alleged new matter is introduced into or affects the claims, thus
necessitating their rejection on this ground, the question becomes an
appealable one, and should not be considered on petition even though that
new matter has been introduced into the specification also”). To the extent
that the objection to the drawings in the Final Office Action turns on the
same issue(s) as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, our
decision with respect to the rejection is dispositive as to the corresponding
objection.
5
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Indefiniteness
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 21
Independent claim 1 recites “a drive mechanism for raising, lowering
or rotating the support section relative to the base in incremental
movements.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines that
“[t]he term ‘drive mechanism’ in claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 21 is indefinite”
and that “[t]he claim appears to invoke [35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,]
by coupling the generic placeholder ‘drive mechanism for’ with functional
language ‘raising, lowering, or rotating. ’ The specification does not contain
sufficient structure to define the generic placeholder, drive [mechanism], and
the term is therefore indefinite.” See Final Act. 5-6; see also Ans. 5-7.
To the extent “drive mechanism” is a means-plus-function limitation
subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, Appellants’ Specification (]fl[
36, 39) and drawings (Figs. 2-6) adequately describe sufficient structure to
define the drive mechanism for performing the functions of the claims. We
agree with Appellants that although the term “drive mechanism” is “not
explicitly set forth in the specification, the structure for carrying out its
function as described in Claim 1 is described in the specification in enough
detail that one with ordinary skill in this art would know how to construct
and practice the stated function.” Appeal Br. 10.
Moreover, Appellants dispute that “drive mechanism” invokes 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.4 Appellants, however, do not explain
specifically how “the claim [is] understood by persons of ordinary skill in
the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”
4 See Original Reply Br. 6 (filed January 8, 2015).
6
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (2015). With no
specific structure noted by Appellants, and applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation without reading “drive mechanism” as a means-plus-function
limitation, we broadly construe “drive mechanism” as any mechanical
system that would provide the recited “raising, lowering or rotating [of] the
support section relative to the base in incremental movements.”
The Examiner further determines that “[t]he term ‘incremental’ in
claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.” Final Act. 6.
According to the Examiner, “[t]he term ‘incremental’ is not defined by the
claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the
requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably
apprised of the scope of the invention.” Id.
Appellants correctly point out that “[w]hen a term of degree or a
relative term is recited in a claim, the first determination is whether the
specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Appeal
Br. 11 (internal citation omitted). We agree with Appellants that paragraph
37 of the Specification provides the standard for ascertaining the requisite
degree and upon review of that paragraph a skilled artisan would reasonably
be apprised of the scope of the subject invention. See id.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 21 for indefmiteness.
Human Organism
The Examiner determines that “[a]n ‘operator’ in the nuclear arts is a
human. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a system comprising a human
being.” Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 7. We agree with Appellants that “a
human organism” is not claimed and that the recited “on command of an
7
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
operator” “define[s] the function of the apparatus in response to an operator
input.” See Appeal Br. 12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for
encompassing a human organism.
Obviousness over Van Sickel, Chavez, and Ling
Claims 1-3
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2 and
3 separate from those presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12-16. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2 and 3 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that Chavez “add[s] no relevant teaching to” Van
Sickel. Appeal Br. 13.
In this case, the Examiner finds that “Van Sickel does not disclose a
gimbaled attachment of the steam generator to the support structure.” Final
Act. 10; see also Ans. 8. The Examiner relies on Chavez for “teach[ing] the
use of such a connection.” Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 8. In particular, the
Examiner finds that “Chavez teaches a pump motor (31) that can be
suspended from saddles (105) through trunnions (85) at two spaced
locations.” Final Act. 10 (citing Chavez 5:19-21, Figs. 3, 8a, 8c); see also
Ans. 8. The Examiner reasons that
such a combination is applying a known technique (the
gimbal/trunnion connection of Chavez) to a known device (the
steam generator support structure of Van Sickel), yielding
predictable results: the ability for the steam generator to self­
level (via rotation around the axis defined by the diametrically
opposed trunnions of Chavez) under the influence of gravity.
Final Act. 10-11; see also Ans. 8. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions
are supported by the record and based on rational underpinnings. “The
8
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); see also Final Act. ll;Ans. 8. “If
a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants have made no attempt to point out where the Examiner’s
findings relative to the presence of the “gimbaled attachment” in Chavez or
the combined teachings of Van Sickel and Chavez is deficient. In other words,
Appellants’ argument is insufficient to apprise us of error in the rejection.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Van
Sickel with the teachings of Ling “would completely change its principle of
operation” of Van Sickel. Appeal Br. 14, 16; see also Reply Br. 3. In
particular, Appellants contend that
[wjhile the device [of Ling] can provide movement with six
degrees of freedom between two parallel plates, it is not clear
how such a simulator could be applied to the steam generator
support of [Van Sickel]. If the simulator of Ling was inserted
between the support structure 44 of [Van Sickel] and a base
attached to the floor (25) of the containment, it would make the
steam generator support unstable. While, possibly such an
arrangement might be able to impart some movement to the
steam generator, e.g., tilt the bottom of the steam generator, such
movement would appear to make the steam generator strain
against its piping connections and it is not clear that the steam
generator could be moved from side to side or up and down due
to the restraints of the snubbers that are attached to the
containment floor. . . . furthermore such an arrangement could
not provide the fine, controlled movement needed to align the
generator with its piping connections.
Appeal Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 3.
9
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
At the outset, we note that claim 1 does not recite that “aligning] the
generator with its piping connections” requires “fine, controlled movement.”
See id.; see also Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Limitations not appearing in
the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982). Van Sickel discloses that the hydraulic snubbing
assemblies 53, 54, and 55 “permit motion for thermal expansion of the
reactor coolant piping 36 from the reactor vessel 22 to the steam generator
32.” Van Sickel 6:48-51 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5:1; Final Act.
11-12; Ans. 8-9, 19. As such, we disagree with Appellants that the snubber
assemblies of Van Sickel “restrain rather than impart movement.” Reply Br.
2; see also Appeal Br. 14, 18. Moreover, in response to Appellants’
argument, the Examiner states that
the structure of Van Sickel supports a nuclear steam generator,
and the addition of the 6DOF [degrees of freedom] platform of
Ling to actuate the alignment of the entire support structure of
Van Sickel with its surrounding components would not, as
[Appellants] allege [], change the principle of operation of Van
Sickel. The combination with Ling does nothing to destroy the
support function nor the passive shock absorbing capabilities
described in column 6, lines 37-59 [of Van Sickel]. The
combination simply imparts the function taught by Ling
(Abstract: “object interaction”) to the support structure of Van
Sickel.
Ans. 19. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. See Reply Br. 3.
Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to provide reasoning with
some rational underpinning to combine Van Sickel, Chavez, and Ling.
Appeal 15, 16. In particular, Appellants contend that
[t]he Examiner asserts that such a combination is an example of
applying a known technique to a known device to achieve a
predictable result. However, in this instance, that is not a rational
underpinning considering the separate teachings of the
10
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
references and the objective to be achieved by this invention. A
result from combining the teachings of the references to
manipulate a steam generator into alignment with its primary
loop connections, other than a disaster, would definitely not be
predictable.
Id. at 15.
At the outset, Appellants’ contention that “combining the teachings of
the references to manipulate a steam generator into alignment with its
primary loop connections” would result in “a disaster” amounts to
unsupported attorney argument, and thus, is entitled to little, if any, weight.
Appeal Br. 15. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no
evidentiary weight). Moreover, it is well established that the reason to
modify the reference may often prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art
to do what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a
different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggests the
combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by an
applicant. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In this case, the Examiner finds that “Chavez teaches that attaching
the steam generator to the support structure of Van Sickel via a
gimbal/trunnion attachment” and reasons that such an attachment “is
advantageous (the combination provides self-leveling through gravity).”
Final Act. 12; see also id. at 10-11; Ans. 8-9. The Examiner further finds
that “Ling teaches that disposing a hydraulically-actuated 6-DOF [degrees of
freedom] platform between the support structure and the base/floor of Van
Sickel [and Chavez]” and reasons that such a combination “is an
improvement (the combination provides seismic isolation coupled with
enabling interaction of the steam generator with other reactor components).”
11
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Final Act. 12; see also id. at 10-11; Ans. 8-9, 19. The Examiner’s findings
and conclusions are supported by the record and based on rational
underpinnings. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument
apprising us of Examiner error.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner engages in impermissible
hindsight in combining the references. Appeal Br. 15. We are not
persuaded. The Examiner cites specific teachings in the references
themselves, not Appellants’ disclosure, in support of the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning for combining the references as proposed in the
rejection. See Final Act. 10-12; see also Ans. 8-9.
Appellants contend that none of the references “teach the alignment of
a steam generator while it is being installed in a nuclear plant, nevertheless
the fine movement required for that purpose when considering the large
mass that has to be manipulated to achieve that objective” or “contemplate
the fine movement of the supports that they describe, in incremental steps
for the purpose of the aligning the substantially large mass of a steam
generator.” Appeal Br. 14-16.
We are not persuaded because claim 1 does not require “alignment of a
steam generator while it is being installed in a nuclear plant” or “fine
movement” “for the purpose of the aligning” the steam generator. Id.
(emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.); In re Self, 671 F.2d
at 1348.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Van Sickel, Chavez,
and Ling. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3, which fall with
claim 1.
12
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Claim 6
Appellants contend that “none of the references teach apparatus
capable of aligning a steam generator for connection to the primary loop
piping system of a reactor that has a capability of fine incremental
movements.” Appeal Br. 17.
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that
Ling discloses an alignment platform capable of fine movement
(it provides the motions of the Stewart platform; see column 3,
lines 31-45 and column 4, lines 5-10). Because the Stewart
platform is capable of any “computer-controlled motion,” the
platform of Ling is therefore capable of the “incremental
movements” of claim 1 and the “fine movement” of claim 6. One
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
recognized that such motion would be defined by the input to the
computer of the Stewart platform and therefore the computer
associated with the invention of Ling.
Ans. 20. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are supported by the
record and based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not apprise us of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6
as unpatentable over Van Sickel, Chavez, and Ling.
Claims 8, 9, 21, and 23
Appellants, at most, recite the limitations of claims 8, 9, 21, and 23
and allege that the combined teachings of Van Sickel, Chavez, and Ling do
not disclose them. Appeal Br. 17, 19. These statements do not constitute
separate arguments for patentability of the claims under 37 C.L.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see In re Lovin, 652 L.3d 1349, 1357 (Led. Cir. 2011)
(holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.L.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief
13
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellants’
statements do not specifically address the Examiner’s findings, much less
explain why the findings are in error. Therefore, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims as unpatentable over Van
Sickel, Chavez, and Ling.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
8, 9, 21, and 23 as unpatentable over Van Sickel, Chavez, and Ling.
Claim 10
Appellants contend that “there is no rational underpinning for the
reasoning offered to support combining the teachings of [Van Sickel,
Chavez, and Ling] to render the limitations of Claim 10 obvious.” Appeal
Br. 18. In this case, the Examiner finds that “Van Sickel shows a lower
support section (44) connected to a base (63, 70), which rests on a floor
(25).” Final Act. 13; see also Ans. 11; Appeal Br. 17-18. The Examiner
concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have found it obvious to dispose the lower support section below the
base because rearrangement of parts with no modification of the operation of
the device has no patentable significance.” Final Act. 13 (internal citation
omitted); see also Ans. 11. Moreover, in response to Appellants’ argument,
the Examiner states that “the claims recite no structural limitations that
indicate the alignment structure (of Ling) must be separable from the support
structure of Van Sickel in order for it to be removed from containment.”
Ans. 21. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
14
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claim 10 as unpatentable over Van Sickel, Chavez,
and Ling.
Claim 11
Appellants contend that “[njeither [Van Sickel, Chavez, nor Ling]
support the steam generator from an upper support section.” Appeal Br. 18.
Here, the Examiner finds that Chavez “teaches a load (31) substantially
supported from at least two substantially diametrically opposed lift links (85
connected to 105; see figures 3, 8a, and 8c and column 5, lines 19-21).”
final Act. 13-14; see also Ans. 11. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been
obvious to substantially support the steam generator (32) [of Van
Sickel] bearing load by the upper support section (52) from at
least two substantially diametrically opposed lift links on the side
of the steam generator, because such a combination is applying
a known technique (the gimbal/trunnion connection of Chavez)
to a known device (the steam generator support structure of Van
Sickel), yielding predictable results: the ability for the steam
generator to self-level (via rotation around the axis defined by
the diametrically opposed trunnions of Chavez) under the
influence of gravity.
Final Act. 14; see also Ans. 11. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions
are supported by the record and based on rational underpinnings. Appellants
do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner
error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
11 as unpatentable over Van Sickel, Chavez, and Ling.
15
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Claims 12-17
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 13-17
separate from those presented for claim 12. See Appeal Br. 18.5 We select
claim 12 as the representative claim, and claims 13-17 stand or fall with
claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that “[wjhile [Van Sickel] provides hydraulic
snubbers, they operate to restrain movement rather than to impose lateral
movement on the generator” and that “[n] either [Chavez] or Ling has an
upper support section that is supported upon at least four points on a wall by
a lateral hydraulic member.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis omitted).
As discussed above, Van Sickel discloses that the hydraulic snubbing
assemblies 53, 54, and 55 “permit motion for thermal expansion of the
reactor coolant piping 36 from the reactor vessel 22 to the steam generator
32.” Van Sickel 6:48-51 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5:1; Final Act.
11-12; Ans. 8-9, 19. As such, we disagree with Appellants that the snubber
assemblies of Van Sickel “restrain rather than impart movement.” Reply Br.
2; see also Appeal Br. 14, 18. Further, the Examiner finds that “Van Sickel
. . . discloses a nuclear steam generator support and alignment structure
wherein the steam generator is at least partially surrounded by the internal
wall and the upper support section is supported upon at least four points on
the wall (See Figure 3, reference 40 and column 5, lines 45-67).” Final Act.
14; see also Ans. 11-12. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
5 Appellants present a similar argument for claim 15 as for claim 12. See
Appeal Br. 19 (“As previously stated, neither of the references teach an upper
support having movement implemented by hydraulic members”).
16
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claim 12 as unpatentable over Van Sickel, Chavez,
and Ling. We further sustain the rejection of claims 13-17, which fall with
claim 12.
Obviousness over Van Sickel and Ling6
Claims 1-3
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2 and
3 separate from those presented for claim 1. See Reply Br. 1-3. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2 and 3 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that “the Examiner has not identified what the
Examiner considers to be the base, which we can only presume is the floor
(25). However, Claim 1 defines the base to be a separate element from the
floor.” Reply Br. 3. In this case, the Examiner finds that Van Sickel
discloses a “substantially rigid support fixture [(44)] including a base (63,
70) supported from the floor [(25)] or internal wall.” Ans. 13 (emphasis
added). Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellants present additional arguments similar to those discussed
above, namely (1) the snubber assemblies of Van Sickel “restrain rather than
impart movement” and (2) modifying Van Sickel with Ling would change
Van Sickel’s “principle of operation.” See Reply Br. 2-3. As discussed
6 The Examiner states that “[i]n light of the withdrawal of the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for scope of enablement and the
resulting broad interpretation of the claim limitation ‘two spaced locations
around a circumference of the steam generator,’ the following alternate
rejection for claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 21, and 23 are presented.” Ans. 13.
17
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
above, these arguments are not persuasive. See Ans. 13-14, 19; see also
Van Sickel 6:48-51.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Van Sickel and Ling.
We further sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3, which fall with claim 1.
Claim 6
Appellants present an argument similar to that discussed above,
namely that the combined teachings of Van Sickel and Ling lack “the
capability of fine incremental movements” for alignment purposes. See
Reply Br. 4. As discussed above, the Examiner provides findings and
conclusions that are supported by the record and based on rational
underpinnings. See Ans. 15, 20. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner
error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
6 as unpatentable over Van Sickel and Ling.
Claims 8 and 9
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claim 9
separate from those presented for claim 8. See Reply Br. 4. We select claim
8 as the representative claim, and claim 9 stands or falls with claim 8. 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that
the Examiner has not stated what the base is. The support section
of [Van Sickel] (44) is one integrated unit that extends between
the steam generator and the floor, so the base would have to be
the floor (25), but that is contrary to Claim 1 which requires the
base to he supported from the floor (or internal wall).
Reply Br. 4.
18
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Van Sickel discloses a
“substantially rigid support fixture [(44)] including a base (63, 70) supported
from the floor [(25)] or internal wall.” Ans. 13 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the Examiner clarifies that
the 6DOF [degrees of freedom] platform of Ling would be
inserted between the lower support section of Van Sickel and the
base of Van Sickel. Such a combination would necessarily result
in the features of Ling being disposed between the support
section (above the lower support section) and the base. See
Figure 3 of Van Sickel: support section 52, lower support section
44, base 63/70. If the structure of Ling were disposed between
63/70 and 44, it would also separate 52 and 63/70.
Id. at 21.7 Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claim 8 as unpatentable over Van Sickel and Ling.
We further sustain the rejection of claim 9, which falls with claim 8.
Claim 10
Appellants present an argument similar to that discussed above,
namely that the Examiner fails to provide reasoning with rational
underpinning that “render the limitations of Claim 10 obvious” over the
combined teachings of Van Sickel and Ling. Reply Br. 4-5. Appellants’
argument is not persuasive. Similar to that discussed above, Appellants do
not apprise us of Examiner error. See Ans. 13, 16, 21.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
10 as unpatentable over Van Sickel and Ling.
7 The Examiner refers to claim 6 rather than claim 8. Ans. 21. We consider
this a typographical error.
19
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
Claims 21 and 23
Appellants, at most, recite the limitations of claims 21 and 23 and
allege that the combined teachings of Van Sickel and Ling do not disclose
them. Reply Br. 5. These statements do not constitute separate arguments
for patentability of the claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Appellants’ statements do not specifically address
the Examiner’s findings, much less explain why the findings are in error.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims as unpatentable over Van Sickel and Ling.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
21 and 23 as unpatentable over Van Sickel and Ling.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written
description.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefmiteness.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 for encompassing a human organism.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, 8-17,
21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Sickel,
Chavez, and Ling.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, 8-10,
21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Sickel and
Ling.
20
Appeal 2015-005130
Application 13/204,091
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
21