13560067 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2017)

Ex Parte Reyes, et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2017

13560067 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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. 13/560,067 07/27/2012 Jose N. REYES, JR. 6985-9045 5711 127047 7590 08/30/2017 Schwabe Williamson &Wyatt/SFC/NuScale 1211 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97204 EXAMINER O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2017 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): IPDocketing @ S CHWABE.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSE N. REYES, JR. and JOHN T. GROOME Appeal 2015-002041 Application 13/560,067 Technology Center 3600 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-002041 Application 13/560,067 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—15, 17, 18, and 23—32. Claims 19—22 were withdrawn and claims 2 and 16 were canceled during prosecution. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants’ claims are directed generally “to a system for removing decay heat from a nuclear reactor.” Spec. 1,1. 9. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A power module assembly comprising: a containment vessel; a reactor vessel housed in the containment vessel, wherein the reactor vessel is configured to release coolant into a containment region located between the reactor vessel and the containment vessel, and wherein the containment vessel is configured to prohibit the released coolant from escaping out of the containment vessel; and a thermal insulation of the reactor vessel including the containment region located between the reactor vessel and the containment vessel, wherein the containment region comprises a partial vacuum that substantially surrounds the reactor vessel and is maintained at a below atmospheric pressure of less than 300 mmHG absolute. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on We REVERSE. THE INVENTION REFERENCES appeal is: Kleimola Fennem Sato US 3,984,282 Oct. 5, 1976 US 6,885,720 B2 Apr. 26, 2005 JP 06-265672 Sept. 22, 1994 2 Appeal 2015-002041 Application 13/560,067 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 3—12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23—26, and 28—32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 2. Claims 1, 3—15, 17, and 23—31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fennem and Kleimola. Id. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fennem, Kleimola, and Sato. Id. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness The Examiner maintains two rejections for indefinite claim language. The first deals with the term “high pressure event” where the Examiner alleges that the “specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the invention.” Final Act. 4. As the Appellants point out, however, “the Examiner has already acknowledged that the specification sufficiently discloses what is considered an ‘emergency operation’” and that “one example of an emergency operation disclosed in the specification comprises an over-pressurization event.” Br. 16 (citing Spec. 8,11. 9—13). We agree that, given this disclosure, one of skill in the art would readily be able to ascertain that a high pressure event is of the kind that would be considered to be an emergency operation resulting from pressure beyond the normal range of operation. One of skill in the art would thus sufficiently understand the scope of the claim language at issue by 3 Appeal 2015-002041 Application 13/560,067 knowing the safe operating pressures versus those that would result in an emergency operation. The second indefiniteness rejection relates to various means-plus- fimction claim terms. The Examiner appears to have misinterpreted the Appellants’ arguments and their use of the well-known descriptor of “non limiting” therein so as not to unnecessarily limit the scope of claim language during prosecution. After the Appellants appropriately pointed to various “non-limiting” examples in the Specification of the various means-plus- fimction claim terms, the Examiner responded by saying that because “these examples in the specification and drawings are non-limiting, as stated by the applicant and in the rejection, what is encompassed in the ‘means for’ language cannot be determined.” Ans. 3. The Appellants have fulfilled their burden under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, by pointing to examples that fulfill the various claim terms at issue. The use of the descriptor “non limiting” in no way represents an admission that the scope of the claims is indefinite, but is merely boiler-plate terminology commonly used during prosecution. Accordingly, we do not sustain either of the indefmiteness rejections. Obviousness All of the prior art rejections rely in some manner on the combination of Kleimola and Fennem. See Ans. 3. As Appellants point out, “[bjoth Fennem and Kleimola disclose releasing steam outside of the containment vessel” in contradiction of the requirement in the claims that “the containment vessel is configured to prohibit the released coolant from escaping out of the containment vessel.” Br. 21. Despite this being the disclosed operation in both references, the Examiner asserts that “[wjhen the device is placed in another operational condition, such as having the 4 Appeal 2015-002041 Application 13/560,067 depicted valves in the system shut, it is configured to prohibit release of coolant from the containment vessel.” Ans. 5. We agree with the Appellants that “the Examiner has failed to identify what other ‘operational condition’ he is referring to, in which valves in the system are allegedly shut.” Br. 23. As stated by Appellants, “[prohibiting the flow of steam into the inlet line 50, as proposed by the Examiner, would produce the opposite effect [of that intended], that is, the build-up of steam in the drywell 29 would increase the pressure in the containment vessel 14.” Br. 22. Furthermore, this operational condition would result in operational pressures, “which would quickly be exceeded in Fenner’s [sic] system design if the steam were not allowed to escape the containment vessel 14 via inlet line 50.” Id. Given that the Examiner’s proposed alternative “operational condition” actually runs counter to the teachings of the prior art at issue and likely would result in failure, we see no basis for the Examiner’s assertion that any valves in Fennem could be closed to meet the claim language because this would change the principle of operation of Fennem. The same or similar language is found in each independent claim at issue and none of the secondary references cures this defect. As such, we do not sustain any of the prior art rejections based on the combination of Fennem and Kleimola. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3—15, 17, 18, and 23—32. REVERSED 5