Ex Parte Erbes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2013

11153342 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN GEDDES ERBES and
CHRISTOPHER MARTIN WELSH
____________

Appeal 2011-000685
Application 11/153,342
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16. App. Br. 1-2. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled and
claims 17-22 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-000685
Application 11/153,342

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system for facilitating a uniform loading
condition for a steam dryer supported by a plurality of support
members supporting a steam dryer in a nuclear reactor,
comprising:
a plurality of devices, each including,
an actuator shaped to fit between a corresponding
support member and a lower bearing surface of a portion of the
dryer and configured to lift the corresponding dryer portion
lower bearing surface relative to the support member,
a measurement unit corresponding to the
corresponding support member configured to measure a
displacement value between the corresponding support member
and the lower bearing surface of the corresponding dryer
portion,
a device housing supporting the actuator and
measurement unit, and
a pair of clamp arms connected to and extending
downward from the device housing to a clamping cylinder, the
clamping arms, the device housing, and the clamping cylinder
defining an opening to receive the corresponding support
member through the opening and to fixedly secure the device to
the support member in relation to the corresponding dryer
portion lower bearing surface.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Price (US 6,000,260; iss. Dec. 14, 1999) and Bainter
(US 6,311,952 B2; iss. Nov. 6, 2001).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Price, Bainter, and Challberg (5,319,689; iss. Jun. 7, 1994).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Challberg, Price, and Bainter.
Appeal 2011-000685
Application 11/153,342

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 3-5 as unpatentable over Price and Bainter
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found that Price discloses a system
for facilitating uniform loading of a steam dryer with a plurality of devices
(hydraulic cylinder assemblies 52, 54, 56, 58, 60), each including an actuator
(cylinder bodies 62, 64, 66, 68, 70) shaped to fit between a corresponding
support member and a lower bearing surface of a portion of the dryer. Ans.
4-5. The Examiner found that Price’s devices lack clamp arms, but Bainter
teaches a device with a housing (stationary base 202), actuator (hydraulic
cylinder 120), and a pair of clamp arms (hydraulic cylinder bay 206) that
extend from the housing 202 to a clamping cylinder (pin 207) to define an
opening to receive and secure a support member. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that the cylinder bay 206, base 202, and pin 207 of
Bainter are fixed and stationary elements that provide no clamping or other
joining mechanism to fixedly secure these elements to any device. App. Br.
15-16. Appellant also asserts that pin 207 is not a “clamping cylinder” and
provides no clamping/fastening/biasing action so as to affix another member
because it is just a pin that is inserted through a hole in bay 206 so hydraulic
cylinder 120 sits on top of pin 207. App. Br. 16 (citing col. 8, ll. 3-5; fig. 3).
The Examiner’s finding that Bainter discloses a device with a pair of
clamp arms that extend from a housing to a clamping cylinder to define an
opening and fixedly secure the device to a support member is not supported
by a preponderance of evidence. We agree with the Examiner that pin 207,
cylinder 120, and bay 206 define an opening when the pin 207 is placed in
one of the bay holes 206A, 206B, 206C to elevate cylinder 120 in the bay
202 on top of the pin 207. See Ans. 15-16; Bainter, fig. 3. However, we
Appeal 2011-000685
Application 11/153,342

4
agree with Appellants that pin 207 is not a clamping cylinder because pin
207 merely supports hydraulic cylinder 120 in bay 206 at different levels to
extend the reach of cylinder 120. Bainter, col. 8, ll. 3-5, 16-20, 54-58. As a
result, the Examiner has not adequately established that pin 207 performs a
clamping function or is capable of facilitating clamping of the device to a
support member to fixedly secure the device to a support member.1 See Ans.
16; see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency
. . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact
that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.”). We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5.
Claims 6-11 as unpatentable over Price, Bainter, and Challberg
The Examiner relied on Challberg to disclose features of claims 6-11,
which depend from claim 1, and not to remedy any deficiencies of Price or
Bainter as to claim 1. Ans. 7-10; see App. Br. 20. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6-11.
Claims 13-16 as unpatentable over Challberg, Price, and Bainter
Claim 13 recites a lifting and measuring assembly including a
plurality of devices, each device including a pair of clamp arms extending
from a device housing to a clamping cylinder to define an opening to receive
a support member and fixedly secure the device to the support member. The

1 Appellants disclose a clamping cylinder 250 that bears against an underside
of a lower planar surface 54 of a support bracket 50 to hold the device 200 in
place and fixedly secure the device 200 between the support bracket 50 and
a lower bearing surface 62. Spec. 10, para. [0039]; fig. 5B. The clamping
cylinder may be connected to a hydraulic line 320C for applying a positive
pressure to each actuator 210 of device 200 to clamp device 200 in place.
Spec. 9, para. [0036]; figs. 2B, 3.
Appeal 2011-000685
Application 11/153,342

5
Examiner relied on Bainter to disclose these features in the same manner as
claim 1. Ans. 12. Appellants argue that Price and Bainter do not disclose a
pair of clamp arms extending down from the device housing to a clamping
cylinder to define an opening and fixedly secure the device to a support
member in the opening. App. Br. 20-21. We agree for the reasons set forth
supra for claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 13-16.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16.

REVERSED

mls