Ex Parte Conway et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

13457683 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
13/457,683 04/27/2012 Lawrence E. Conway RTU 2011-007 8907
26353 7590 01/03/2017
WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C EXAMINER
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
BURKE, SEAN P
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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 LAWRENCE E. CONWAY and
ALEXANDER W. HARKNESS
Appeal 2015-004653
Application 13/457,6831
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1 and 5—15. Claims 2-4 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Westinghouse Electric Company LLC as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004653
Application 13/457,683
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A nuclear reactor comprising:
an elongated reactor vessel having a lower portion sealed
at a lower end and having an open upper end on which an annular
flange is formed and a central axis extending along an elongated
dimension;
a reactor vessel head having an annular portion on an
underside of the head that is machined to form a sealing surface;
a removable annular seal ring, sized to seat on the reactor
vessel flange between the flange and the sealing surface on the
underside of the reactor vessel head, the seal ring being
interposed between the sealing surface on the underside of the
vessel head and the flange on the reactor vessel lower portion and
having a thickness sized to sealably accommodate radial
passages through which utility conduits pass from outside of the
reactor vessel to an interior thereof to transport one or more
utilities comprising hydraulic fluid for hydraulic mechanisms,
instrumentation signals or power for electrical mechanisms, the
removable annular seal ring including one or more of such radial
passages;
a reactor internals assembly comprising a lower internals
which includes a reactive core and an upper internals situated
above the core, the internals assembly being seated within the
reactor vessel, wherein the removable annular seal ring is
attached to the reactor internals assembly; and
a substantially annular passage between an interior wall of
the reactor vessel lower portion and the internals assembly for a
downward flow of relatively cool reactor coolant to access an
underside of the reactive core, wherein at least a portion of the
removable annular seal ring extends over the annular passage
where it is attached to the reactor internals assembly, wherein the
portion of the removable annular seal ring that extends over the
annular passage includes axially extending openings for the
passage of reactor coolant.
2
Appeal 2015-004653
Application 13/457,683
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5—7, and 11—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of the combination of Sherman et al. (US
3,158,543, issued Nov. 24, 1964) and Deighton (U.S. Patent No. 3,397,114,
issued Aug. 13, 1968). Ans. 2.
Claim 8 stands rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in
view of Sherman, Deighton, and Fox et al. (US 3,660,231, issued May 2,
1972). Ans. 2.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Sherman, Deighton, and Merkovsky et al. (US
6,301,319 Bl, issued Oct. 9, 2001). Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Sherman teaches each structural limitation of
claim 1, including the claimed “removable annular seal ring” having “axially
extending openings for the passage of reactor coolant.” Final Act. 5—6;
accord Ans. 3. Appellants argue Sherman does not teach a removable
annular seal ring that has axially extending openings over the annular
passage for the flow of reactor coolant, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellants argue that, while Sherman discloses a support barrel
61 having vertical coolant outlet slots 67, the slots and support barrel are
part of the reactor’s upper internals to which the seal ring is attached, but the
slots are not part of a seal ring as claimed. Id.
The Examiner responds that Sherman teaches a “core support flange
62” that is welded to the upper support barrel 61 and the “barrel and the
3
Appeal 2015-004653
Application 13/457,683
flange are a single removable unit” (Ans. 4 n. 6 (citing Sherman 3:43—49)).
Claim 1, though, recites the removable annular seal ring separate and apart
from a “reactor internals assembly.” See App. Br. 10—11 (claim 1 recites
“removable annular seal ring is attached to the reactor internals assembly”;
claim 6 recites “removable annular seal ring is attached to the upper
internals”; claim 7 recites “removable annular seal ring is removable from
the reactor vessel with removal of the upper internals”).
Considering the plain language of claim 1 in light of Appellants’
Specification, we disagree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed “removable annular seal ring” includes both
Sherman’s flange 62 and the upper support barrel 61. The plain language of
claims 1, 6, and 7 provides that the removable annular seal ring is a separate
element from the reactor’s internal assembly, and Appellants’ Specification
similarly describes the removable annular seal ring separate and apart from
the reactor’s internal assembly (Spec. 13, 14, 15, 30). Notably, in
contrast to the Examiner’s finding regarding Sherman’s flange welded
together with the upper support barrel, Appellants’ Specification highlights
the distinction between the seal ring and the upper internals with its
disclosure that “ring 44 is secured to the upper internals 62 either through
mechanical fasteners or a bi-metallic weld.” Spec. 130; compare Sherman
3:43—44 (“Core support flange 62 is welded to the top of upper support
barrel 61.”) (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 7 (“In regard to Claim 6,
Sherman teaches the seal ring (Fig. 1, ref. no. 62) is attached (Fig. 1, ref. no.
62 attached to upper internals via slots, ref. no. 67 and welding means) to the
upper internals (Fig. 1, ref. no. 242).”; “In regard to Claim 7, Sherman
4
Appeal 2015-004653
Application 13/457,683
teaches the ring is removable from the reactor vessel with removable of the
upper internals, as the seal and internals are connected via a weld . . .
In other words, while Appellants’ Specification provides that the
removable annular seal ring can be welded to the reactor’s upper internal
assembly much in the way that Sherman describes flange 62 welded to upper
support barrel 61, this and the remaining intrinsic evidence maintains the
distinction between those elements. We find no intrinsic evidence to support
the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed removable annular seal ring to
include Sherman’s flange and upper support barrel. Accordingly, we
disagree with the Examiner’s findings that Sherman teaches the claimed
“removable annular seal ring” having “axially extending openings for the
passage of reactor coolant.”
We also disagree with the Examiner’s finding that rearranging the
vertical coolant outlet slots described in Sherman from the upper support
barrel to the flange would represent nothing more than an obvious
rearrangement of parts. Ans. 4 (citing MPEP 2144.04). Sherman states that
“[t]he upper section of upper support barrel 61 contains a large number of
vertical coolant outlet slots 67, which are distributed circumferentially about
the barrel 61 in spaced relation to one another and allow the support barrel
61 and flange 62 to expand differentially without generating high thermal
stresses.” Sherman 3:44-49 (emphasis omitted). Among other things, the
Examiner’s hypothetical rearrangement of Sherman’s flange and coolant
outlet slots would change both the structure Sherman’s flange and the
relationship between the flange its related parts (see, e.g., Sherman 16:6—65
(providing that core support flange 61 “permits simpler closure head design
5
Appeal 2015-004653
Application 13/457,683
and permits simpler refueling procedures”)), and the Examiner provides no
evidence that such changes would have been obvious.
We also agree with Appellants that Deighton does not teach axially
extending openings in a seal ring and therefore does not cure the deficiency
of Sherman. See App. Br. 4—5. Accordingly, having considered the
Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of
record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1, nor the rejections of
claims 5—15, each of which depends from claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 5—15.
REVERSED
6