Ex Parte Friedrich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2018

13121343 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/121,343 07/07/2011
23280 7590 05/17/2018
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th A venue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erhard Friedrich
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11000568.1033 8048
EXAMINER
GARNER, LILY CRABTREE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712018 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERHARD FRIEDRICH, GREGOR MUNSTERJOHANN, and
BERND BLOCK
Appeal2017-005827
Application 13/121,343 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Erhard Friedrich et al. ("Appellants") seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14, 16-27, and 31-34. 2
Final Office Action (May 18, 2015) (hereinafter "Final Act."). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify Areva NP as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2
(October 7, 2015) (hereinafter "Appeal Br.").
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 28-30.
Examiner's Answer 13 (December 29, 2016) (hereinafter "Ans."). Claims
28-30 do not stand rejected.
Appeal2017-005827
Application 13/121,343
The claimed subject matter relates to a device for connecting a guide
tube to a lower nozzle in a nuclear fuel assembly. Clean Substitute
Specification i-f 1 (March 28, 2011) (hereinafter "Spec."). During
maintenance operations, it may be desirable to remove the lower nozzle to
replace one of the fuel rods. Id. i-f 6. An object of the invention is to provide
a connecting device that eases maintenance operations. Id. i-f 8. The
connecting device includes a locking device that, upon tightening a screw to
the nut, axially pushes the screw toward an abutment surface to prevent
loosening of the screw. Id. i-f 12. The locking device also retains the screw
in the body when the screw is unscrewed from the nut. Id. i-f 15.
The Examiner found that the prior art anticipates the claimed
connecting device including the locking device for preventing loosening of
the tightened screw and for retaining the unscrewed screw in the body. Final
Act. 5, 9-11. We disagree with this finding. Accordingly, we REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 14, 33, and 34 are independent. Claim 14, reproduced below,
illustrates the subject matter on appeal with relevant claim language
highlighted in italics.
14. A connecting device for connecting a guide tube to
a lower nozzle in a nuclear fuel assembly, the connecting
device comprising:
a screw;
a body having a bore for screwing the screw to a nut
through the bore, the screw axially abutting an abutment surface
of the body; and
a locking device for preventing loosening of the screw,
the locking device including an elastic locking member adapted
for preventing loosening of the screw by axially pushing the
2
Appeal2017-005827
Application 13/121,343
screw along a screw axis against the abutment surface, the
elastic locking member being adapted for retaining the screw in
the body after unscrewing the screw.
Corrected Appeal Brief (September 24, 2016), Appendix A, 1.
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action, as modified by the Examiner's Answer
withdrawing the rejection of claims 28-30, includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 14, 16-21, 24, 25, 33, and 34 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Martin et al. (US 3,343,581,
issued September 26, 1967) ("Martin").
2. Claim 22 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Martin and Frattarola (US 5,382,124, issued
January 17, 1995).
3. Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Martin, Frattarola, and Herb et al.
(US 6,461,091 B2, issued October 8, 2002) ("Herb").
4. Claim 26 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Martin and Marlatt et al. (US 4,427,624, issued
January 24, 1984) ("Marlatt").
5. Claims 27, 31, and 32 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin and Joy (US 2,602,191,
issued July 8, 1952).
ISSUE
The Examiner finds, with reference to Figures 1--4 of Martin, that
Martin teaches a connecting device including screw 13, body 14 having an
abutment surface within groove 35, and a locking device including elastic
3
Appeal2017-005827
Application 13/121,343
locking member 21 for preventing loosening of the screw by axially pushing
the screw along a screw axis against the abutment surface. Final Act. 5, 9-
11. In particular, the Examiner finds that locking member 21 snaps into
groove 3 5 to permanently lock it into the receptacle against any further axial
displacement, thereby preventing loosening of the screw. Id. (citing Martin,
col. 3, 11. 56-58); see also Ans. 14-15, 18, 21 ("Because ring 21 is locked
into place in groove 35, the entire screw 13 is prevented from loosening and
popping back out of the receptacle into which it was forced").
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding independent
claims 14, 33, and 34 anticipated by Martin because Martin's ring 21 does
not axially push the screw against the axial surface of groove 35. Appeal
Br. 8. Appellants contend that ring 21 merely retains the screw captive once
it is unscrewed, and that pushing of ring 21 by spring 24 does not prevent
loosening of the screw, as required by the claims. Id. at 9.
The issue before us is whether a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's finding that Martin's ring 21, when snapped into
groove 35, axially pushes the screw along a screw axis against the abutment
surface for preventing loosening of the screw.
ANALYSIS
In each of independent claims 14, 33, and 34, the locking device
performs two recited functions. First, when the screw is screwed to a nut,
the locking device prevents loosening of the screw by axially pushing the
screw along a screw axis against the abutment surface. Second, after
unscrewing the screw from the nut, the locking device retains the screw in
the body. Appeal Br., Appendix A.
4
Appeal2017-005827
Application 13/121,343
The claimed functions of the locking device are described in
Appellants' Specification with reference to two disclosed embodiments. In a
first embodiment, shown in Figures 2--4, locking device 24 comprises
annular mounting groove 44, locking ring 46 disposed inside mounting
groove 44, and two receiving grooves 48, 50. Spec. i-f 46. Each receiving
groove 48, 50 is adapted for allowing elastic expansion of ring 46 when
mounting groove 44 faces respective receiving groove 48, 50, such that ring
46 axially locks screw 20 relative to body 22. Id. i-f 56.
Receiving groove 48 functions as a locking groove when the screw is
threaded into the nut to prevent loosening of the screw. Id. i-f 54, Fig. 2. In
the screwed-in position of Figure 2, stop portion 38 of screw 20 abuts
abutment surface 32 of body 22 and mounting groove 44 faces locking
groove 48. Id. i-f 60. In this position, ring 46 radially expands and exerts an
axial upward force on screw 20 due to contact with inclined lower lateral
wall 56 of locking groove 48 causing ring 46 to push screw 20 against
abutment surface 32 to lock screw 20 and prevent axial movement of screw
20 away from abutment surface 32. Id. i-fi-160, 62-64.
Receiving groove 50 functions as a retaining groove when the screw
is unscrewed to retain the screw in the body. Id. i-f 54, Fig. 3. In the
unscrewed position of Figure 3, stop portion 38 is axially spaced apart from
abutment surface 32, and mounting groove 44 is facing retaining groove 50.
Id. i-f 61. In this position, ring 46 radially expands and due to the downward
orientation of upper lateral wall 58 and the upward orientation of lower
lateral wall 59, ring 46 prevents unintentional axial movement of screw 20
relative to body 22 in both directions. Id. i-f 58, 61, 66-67.
5
Appeal2017-005827
Application 13/121,343
In a second embodiment, shown in Figures 5 and 6, locking device 24
comprises helical spring 60 received inside lower section 28 of body so that
spring 60 is axially compressed between lower seat 62 on body 22 and upper
seat 64 on screw 20. Spec. i-f 80. Spring 60 is preloaded to exert a
permanent axial force on screw 20 toward abutment surface 32. Id. i-f 81.
Spring 60 thus locks screw 20 in the screwed position. Id. Spring 60 allows
axial movement of screw 20 relative to the body 22 on a limited stroke, such
that screw 20 is not removable from body 22. Id. i-f 85.
The claimed elastic locking member corresponds to either ring 46 of
the first embodiment or spring 60 of the second embodiment disclosed in the
Specification. As discussed above, in both embodiments, the elastic locking
member pushes upward on the screw when the screw is threaded into nut,
thereby preventing loosening of the screw.
Although Martin's ring 21 and spring 24 are adapted to perform the
claimed retaining function, they are not adapted to perform the claimed
locking function to prevent loosening of the screw. Martin describes that as
the screw is threaded into wall 12, spring 24 compresses axially causing split
ring 21 to compress radially as it slides down beveled wall surface 34 and
along flattened annular portion 36 of receptacle 14. Martin, col. 3, 11. 45-54.
As ring 21 slides past the end of annular portion 36, it snaps into the groove
as it expands to a slightly larger diameter and is permanently locked into the
receptacle against any further axial displacement. Id. at col. 3, 11. 54-58.
Once ring 21 is snapped into groove 35, "upon unthreading the screw
member from the container 12, the spring will project the head 17 out of the
receptacle 26 but the screw member will not become separated from the
receptacle." Id. at col. 3, 11. 68-72.
6
Appeal2017-005827
Application 13/121,343
Thus, as shown in Figure 3 of Martin, when screw 13 is screwed into
wall 12, spring 24 pushes ring 21 against the axial surface (i.e., to the right)
in groove 35. The shank 15 of screw 13, however, is free to slide within
ring 21. Compare Martin, Fig. 1, with Martin, Figs. 2, 3. Thus, ring 21 does
not prevent axial movement of screw 13 away from groove 35 and, thus,
does not prevent loosening of screw 13. In other words, there is no axial
force exerted by either spring 24 or ring 21 that pushes screw 13 against an
abutment surface to prevent loosening of the screw.
For these reasons, Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner's
finding of anticipation of independent claims 14, 33, and 34 is not supported
by a preponderance of the evidence. Likewise, dependent claims 16-21, 24,
and 25, which depend from claim 14, also are not anticipated by Martin.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14, 16-21, 24, 25, 33,
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Martin.
The remaining grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
dependent claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 31, and 32 are based on the same deficient
findings as to the anticipation of independent claim 14 by Martin. The
teachings of Frattarola, Herb, Marlatt, and Joy, on which the Examiner
relies, do not cure the deficiency in Martin. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, we likewise do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 14, 16-2 7, and 31-3 3
is reversed.
REVERSED
7